Skip to main content

Full text of "introduction to the new testament"

See other formats 


MADR Mae aL NA EMAL SET RS EAR 
UN AE Ai nash SANSONE NSA! 


Nata) i 


ane 
pias Roa ie 
I! eh he 
mermtenal 
i BSN ge GT Mat 
LSM ia Ong shy 3 3 : f : 3 : 
MN aise hays te : : 3 : 2x : Re ; ; Notte 
~ : i M : ID NIE AN ts 
Si 


Pe ODE So lACAW MAT Mea de ANE APN br ae 

WAM NET Ducane? 
By MANTA NDNA Mba A Se 
NENA SGC te ARE 


We he 

em herigitatiy Wek de 
Leth Fee MS ASTATN Pein ity we WS AE Ne BE: age Mew 
Sa ADAYA ON Pras AN TM A Sie REM OIANS EMET ASM Re I 

SEMEN Hier Mater FS. PASM NL ey Sa 
Ne ae LUTEMAA SIAL Oo ep asians Th ‘ 
oo r i De Leathe WOM AL TO ve gagained ocr, Yoko 

Baht sels ‘ x sk: : SAMA WAY ed SOUS a ALTE SNA, RNG NMSA LEU Ae: 

A 2 : .— = ean 


s aN Renzh rie 


Roh 
es 


Nas 
SHR ASAE RAEN D STEN 
ERLE SONOS 
We Very 
Pe MsAS ASE 


Rune 
Shawne 
ae ee 


Te Vege ae Me apasastis 
acto, 
SSF encase 
AapMern ee nancy 
me oe stn ath 


emetic Utara 
TINO aC wero 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Kahle/Austin Foundation 


https://archive.org/details/introductiontone0003theo 


- 
P 
CINC |, OHIO 45204-3200 


INTRODUCTION 
TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


‘INTRODUCTION 


NEW TESTAMENT, 


BY 


THEODOR ZAHN 


PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS, ERLANGEN UNIVERSITY 


TRANSLATED FROM THE THIRD GERMAN EDITION 


BY 


JOHN MOORE TROUT, WILLIAM ARNOT MATHER, LOUIS 
HODOUS, EDWARD STRONG WORCESTER, WILLIAM 
HOYT WORRELL, anD ROWLAND BACKUS DODGE 


FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF 


MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS 


HOSMER PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS 
AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY 


ASSISTED BY 


CHARLES SNOW THAYER 


DIRECTOR OF THE CASE MEMORIAL LIBRARY 


IN THREE VOLUMES 


Vou. III. anp INDEx 


NEW YORK 
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
1909 


ere, ils bl ae 
in? i 


RK is 


yg? 
nightie 


ass As lar wrna 


INDEX 


CONTENTS 


—— 
IX. Continued.—Tue Writincs or LUKE : : : 7 
§ 58. The Tradition concerning Luke and his Work 
§ 59. The Twofold Recension of the Text of Acts ; 
§ 60. Preface, Plan, and Purpose of Luke’s Historical Work 
§ 61. The Sources used by Luke c 
§ 62. The Author of the Work attributed to ie and the 
Time of its Composition : : : 
§ 63. Retrospect and Forecast’ . : - C c 
X. THE WritIncs oF JOHN . c ° ; : : 
§ 64. The Tradition : - 
_7 § 65. The Testimony of the Fourth Gospel to its Author : 
§ 66. The Supplementary Chapter 
_7 §67. The Relation of the Fourth Gospel to the earlier 
Gospels 
§ 68. Purpose and Method, Character and Readers of the 
Fourth Gospel 
§ 69. Integrity, Date of Composition, and Geet of the 
Fourth Gospel . 
§ 70. The First Epistle of J ohn 5 3 ‘ , 
§ 71. The Lesser Epistles of John » c 
§ 72. The Nature, Structure, and Unity of Revelation: 
§ 73. The Condition of Affairs in the Church according to 
Revelation i.-11. ; j ; : ; 
§ 74. The Author of Revelation . 
§ 75. Contemporary-Historical or Futurist Interpretation 
"XL Curononocican SURVEY . : : : : . 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE . : . . 2 . 


PAGE 


481 


487 


ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES 


NHJb 


NJbf{DTh . 


NKZ. 
OLZ . 


American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. 

American Journal of Theology. 

Altorientalische Forschungen. 

Byzantische Zeitschrift. 

Biblische Zeitschrift. 

Christliche Welt. 

Expositor. 

Expository Times. 

Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 

Gottingische Gelehrte Nachrichten. 

Journal of Biblical Literature. 

Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft. 

Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. 

Jahrbiicher fiir Klassische Philologie. 

Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie. 

Jahrbuch der kgl. Preussischen Kunstsammlungen. 

Journal of Hellenic Studies. 

Journal of Philology. 

Jewish Quarterly Review. 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 

Journal of Theological Studies. 

Literarisches Centralblatt. 

Literarische Rundschau. 

Monatschrift der Berliner Akademie. 

Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palistina- 
Vereins. 

Monatschrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Juden- 
thums. 

Mittheilungen der Vorder-asiatischen Gesellschaft. 


. Nachrichten der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 


zu Gottingen. 
Neue Heidelberger Jahrbiicher. 
Neue Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theologie. 
Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift. 


Orientalische Litteraturzeitung. 
vu 


viii ABBREVIATIONS FOR REVIEW TITLES 


PEF . . . Palestine Exploration Fund. 

RB... . Revue Biblique. 

REJ . . . Revue des Etudes Juives. 

RKZ. . . Reformirte Kirchenzeitung. 

SBAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
SWAW . . Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften. 
ThJb. . . Theologische Jahrbiicher. 

ThLb. . . Theologisches Litteraturblatt. 

AUB GE Theologische Literaturzeitung. 


Thee” or} pbingen Theologische Quartalschrift. 


ThR . . . Theologische Rundschau. 

AMSVakGe: s- — Theologische Studien und Kritiken. 
Tr Theologische Tijdschrift. 

TU .. . Texte und Untersuchungen. 


TZfTh . . Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theologie. 

WZiKM. . Wiener Zeitschrift fiir Kunde des Morgenlandes. 
us °F ‘Zeitschrift fiir Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde. 
ZfA . . . Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie und Verwandte Gebiete. 
ZfATW . . Zeitschrift fiir Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 

ZDMG . . Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft. 
ZDPV . . Zeitschrift des deutschen Palastina-Vereins. 

ZiHTh . . Zeitschrift fiir Historische Theologie. 

ZiKG . . Zeitschrift fir Kirchengeschichte. 

ZiKTh . . Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theologie. 


Sa \zeitschvift fiir Kirkliche Wissenschaft und Kirchliches Leben. 


Z{LTh . . Zeitschrift fiir lutherische Theologie. 

ZiNTW . . Zeitschrift fiir Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft. 
ZiThuk. . Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche. 

ZiwTth . . Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Theologie. 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 


ieee 
IX.— Continued. 
THE WRITINGS OF LUKE. 


§ 58. THE TRADITION CONCERNING LUKE AND 
HIS WORK. 


THE Luke to whom the composition of the third Gospel 
and of Acts was unanimously ascribed by the ancient 
Church (n. 1), is first mentioned by Paul in the Epistles of 
the first and second Roman imprisonments. Since he is 
characterised in Col. iv. 14 as “the beloved physician,” 
and mentioned in Philem. 24 last in the list of Paul’s 
helpers, we are justified in assuming that he was in some 
way connected with the missionary work in Rome, without, 
however, having given up his professional calling, which 
might open the way for him to many homes and hearts 
that remained closed to others. It is also possible that he 
rendered valuable services as a physician to the apostle 
himself, who was often severely ill. While Demas, who 
is mentioned in both these passages along with Luke, 
deserted the apostle from sordid motives in 66, after the _ 
apostle’s second arrest, and when his life was in constant 
danger, Luke remained faithfully with him (2 Tim. 


VOL, III. I 


2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 10f.). The only other thing indicated by Col. 
iv. 10-14 and its context is the fact that Luke was a 
Gentile by birth (n. 2). Further facts with regard to 
Luke’s life history have always been derived from the 
two parts of the work ascribed to him, under the pre- 
supposition that he is the author of both, and that the 
‘“‘we,” which occurs repeatedly in Acts, includes the “I” of 
the author who mentions himself in Luke i. 3; Actsi. 1. 
In the original recension of Acts (§ 59) this “we” 
occurs for the first time in Acts xi. 27 (n. 3). Inasmuch 
as the narrative in this passage dates back to a time 
preceding the first year of the joint work of Paul and 
Barnabas in Antioch (43-44), before the Emperor Claudius 
came to the throne (Jan. 41; for both dates cf. Part XL.), 
the narrator must have become a member of the Antiochian 
Church at the latest by the year 40, so that his conversion 
cannot have been due to Paul, who did not come to Antioch 
until 43. Nor is this statement affirmed by Luke. The 
tradition that Luke was a native of Antioch was always 
so definite, that it is extremely unlikely that it is the result 
of scholarly reflection upon Acts xi. 27 (n. 4), and we are 
unable to prove that the oldest witnesses for this tradition, 
Eusebius and Julius Africanus, who wrote probably a 
hundred years before Eusebius, were not in possession of 
other information besides Acts xi. 27. There must be 
taken into account here the further tradition, likewise 
old, according to which there was a rich Antiochian by 
the name of Theophilus who became a Christian in the 
apostolic age, and who later was expressly identified with 
the Theophilus of Luke i. 3; Acts 1.1; but not in any 
way contradictory of the original story (n. 5). Every- 
thing else that is said and narrated about Luke impresses 
us as being of the nature either of uncertain conjecture or 
inference from the “we” passages of Acts and from the 
hints of the prologue to the Gospel, which were in part 
misunderstood, in part exaggerated (n. 6). 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 3 


In the same way, the ancient Church possessed no 
tradition regarding the time and place of the composition 
of the two books, but depended altogether upon conjec- 
tures (n. 7). Only one point seems to go back to a very 
ancient recollection, namely, that Luke wrote later than 
Matthew and Mark, and before John, 7.e. somewhere 
between the years 67 and 90 (vol. ii. 392-400). 


1. (P. 1.) Concerning Luke as the author of the third Gospel, so 
acknowledged even by Marcion, see vol. ii. 389f. That he wrote Acts was 
equally taken for granted by the earliest writers who discuss the book or 
cite it formally : Iren. iii. 13. 3, after extracts from Acts i—xv. (ex sermonibus 
et actibus apostolorum, iii. 12.11; ex actibus apostolorum, iii. 13. 3), speaks of 
the book as Luce de apostolis testificatio, and similarly in iii. 15. 1 ag the 
testificatio following his Gospel. Canon Murat. line 34, “acta autem omnium 
apostolorum sub uno libro scripta sunt. Lucas optime Theophile,” etc. Clem. 
Strom. v. 83: Kao cal 6 Aoukds ev rais mpdgeou Tv drocrdA@y dropynpovever 
Tov Iaddov déyovra (Acts xvii. 22); Hypot. (Lat. version) on 1 Pet. v. 13: 
“Sicut Lucas quoque et actus apostolorum stylo exsecutus agnoscitur et Pauli 
ad Hebreos interpretatus epistolam.” Tert. de Jejunio, x., after citations from 
Acts, in eodem commentario Luce. 'The fact that the book is seldom ascribed 
explicitly to Luke, even by those who mention its rejection by Marcion (Tert. 
c. Marc. v. 1.2; Prescr. xxii; pseudo-Tert. Her. xvi. ; also, indirectly, Iren. 
ili. 14. 4-15. 1), and that it is constantly cited simply as ai mpd&es with or 
without rév dmocrdédav, Lat. acta (so Tertullian always, and also Cyprian 
GK, ii. 52, A.1) or actus, likewise with or without apostolorwm, shows that no 
other opinion concerning its authorship had been expressed in any quarter. 
With regard to the claim that Clement of Alexandria (Scholia of Maximus on 
Dionys. Areop. Opera, ed. Corderius, ii. 242) asserts that the Dialogue of Jason 
and Papiscus was written not by Ariston of Pella, but by Luke, the present 
writer believes that in Forsch. iii. 74 enough has been said for anyone who 
knows what dvaypdpew means, as distinguished from ypddew and ovyypdpew © 
(cf. e.g. Eus. H. #. iii. 4.11). Following Grabe’s necessary emendation, Ido aves 
dy (instead of jv) KAnpns . . . Tov dyov Aoveay noi dvaypayrar—we find that 
Clement simply said that the Jason of the dialogue was the same one that 


- Luke mentioned in Acts xvii. 5. It was doubtless this’ passage, and not Acts 


xxi. 16 (8 Copt. Idcov:) that Clement had in mind. In Hom. in Ascens. Chr. 
et in Principiam Actorum, ii., which Montfaucon (Opp. Chrysost. iii. '75'7 ff.) 
includes with the “Spuria” as only partly genuine, it is said (p. 764) that 
some considered Clement of Rome the author of Acts, others Barnabas, and 
still others the evangelist Luke: the preacher himself decides for Luke (cf. 
also iii. 774). This is repeated verbatim by Photius in Quest. cxxiii. ad 
Amphil. (Migne, ci. col. 716), which, like Quest. cxxiv., is simply an excerpt 
from the homily. Plainly the preacher, speaking extemporaneously, was led 
by mistaken recollection or careless reading of Eus. H. H. vi. 14. 2, 25. 14, to 
confuse the tradition concerning the author of Heb. with that concerning the 
author of Acts, which could happen the more easily since, in mentioning the 


4 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


former, Clem. Alex. and Orig. allude also to Luke’s authorship of Acts 
(vol. ii. 308 f., notes 5, 7). 

2. (P. 2.) From Col. iv. 10-14 it follows that Luke was not ‘only a 
Gentile by birth, but also remained uncircumcised ; cf. vol. i. 450f. This 
was also the opinion of the early writers. When Jerome, Quest. Hebr. in Gen. 
(ed. Lagarde, 64), writes “licet plerique tradant Lucam evangelistam ut 
proselytum hebreeas literas ignorasse,” he can hardly mean that he was first 
converted from heathendom to Judaism, and afterward from Judaism to 
Christianity, but only that, unlike the other N.T. writers, who were Hebrews, 
he came to Christianity out of heathendom; cf. Just. Dial. exxii. When, in 
another place, he credits Luke with only a better knowledge of Greek than of 
Hebrew, and so with some knowledge at least of the latter (on Isa. vi. and 
xxvili., Vall. iv. 97, 378),he doubtless has in mind merely such explanations 
of proper names as are given in Acts i. 19, iv. 36. 

3. (PR. 2.) Underlying the usual text of Acts xi. 27, D—with which 
several Latin authorities are in substantial agreement—gives : jv dé moAXy) 
dyaAXlacis. ovverrpappéver b€ nuar, én eis €€ ad’rav dvopar.”AyaBos onpatvey 
Sid Tod mvevparos xrA. As to text and style, see § 59,n.6. Harnack (Berl. 
Sttzwngsbericht, 1899, S. 316-327) has extended his depreciating judgment 
concerning the 6 text to cover this passage also, and, besides, has explained 
the jay as a later interpolation, in no respect originating with the author of 
the text, instead of an original airéy. In view of the agreement of the 
numerous witnesses from Augustine (from 394 A.D.) onwards for 8 in this 
passage, this last statement would, however, need stronger proofs. The 
solitary position of the juév is not strange, since, except perhaps for xiii. 2, 
this is the only place where a single scene taken from the Church life of 
Antioch is portrayed. In xiii. 2—especially according to 8 (see n. 6)—only 
the prophets, not all the Church members, are the participants, and Luke has 
there expressed in another way his especial interest in Antioch. The charge 
that the description lacks the vividness which would be expected of an eye- 
witness, is based upon arbitrary assumptions, as, ¢.g., that onuaivey points to 
a symbolical act (S. 319, A. 1; cf. per contra, with the exception of did rod 
mvevparos, Which is rather against it, John xii, 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; Rev. 
i. 1), and that ver. 29, where the “disciples” are again mentioned quite 
objectively, refers to the gathering described in vv. 27-28, whereas it has 
to do with decisions and economic deliberations of individuals who are 
without official position. If Luke had said that he also was one of these 
more or less affluent and charitable Church members, no one would have 
commended him for such a statement. The agreement of the B text of this 
passage with Luke, and especially also with the peculiarities in style of the 
8 text in general (Harnack, S. 321f.), is no proof against the originality of 
the entire 8 text, but is a witness only to its integrity. 

4, (P. 2.) The episcopate of Timothy at Ephesus and of Titus in Crete 
(iii. 4, 6), the distribution of countries among the apostles (iii. 1), and the 
composition of The Shepherd by the Hermas named in Rom. xvi. 14 (iii. 3. 6), 
are plainly mentioned by Eusebius as uncertain traditions. Other matters, 
such as the identity of the Roman bishops Linus and Clement with the N.T. 
personages of the same names, are supported by the citation of the N.T. 
passages (iii. 2, 4. 9f., 15; ef. iii, 4. 11 on Dionysus the Areopagite). On the 


’ 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 5 


other hand, ili. 4. 7: Aouxas d€ ro pev yévos dv trav am’ >Avtioyxeias, Tiv 
ercotnuny Oe tarpds xtA. It is probably not Eusebius but Africanus (cf. 
Spitta, Brief des Afr. an Aristides, S. 70, 111) who, being himself a physician, 
writes of the physician Luke (Mai, Nova. P. Bibl. iv. 1. 270): 6 dé Aoukas 76 
pev yévos amd ths Bowpévns “Avtioyeias jy, ev 7 Oy of mavTes Noywrarot TOUS 
"Iwvas mpoyévous avxodow* od pay GdAda mpos TO xara hiow AAnviKe Tov 
dvdpav emnyero Tt whéov 6 Aovkas ev Aéyos, dre iarpixys euretpos Ov emioThpns. 
The true Euthalius depends on Eusebius (Zacagni, 410; cf. 529); hardly, 
however, the old prologue (N.T. ed. Wordsworth, i. 269 ; cf. the prologue on 
Acts ii. 1-4): “Lucas Syrus natione Antiochensis, arte medicus, discipulus 
apostolorum, postea Paulum secutus,” ete. In this and in other particulars 
Jerome’s Preef. Comm. in Matt. (Vall. vii. 3) accords more exactly with this 
prologue than do Vir. Ill. vii. and other passages. Origen, iv. 686, on Rom. 
xvi. 21, mentions, without approving, the view that Luke was the Lucius there 
referred to; which is impossible, if for no other reason, because Paul speaks 
of the latter, as of Jason and Sosipater, as Jews (vol. i. 417, n. 22). This 
view was known also in another form, namely, that the Luke supposed to be 
mentioned in Rom., 7.e. Lucius, became bishop of Laodicea in Syria (Dorotheus 
on the 70 disciples, Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed. ii. 126). Modern scholars 
(Wettstein, N.7. ii. 532; Bengel, Gnomon on Luke i. 1, 3, ed. Stuttgart, 1860, 
pp. 204, 205) were the first to undertake the identification of Luke with 
Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 1), explaining thus the tradition that he was an 
Antiochian. But (1) no one of the early writers thought that Luke was 
mentioned in that passage, and the text tradition of Acts xiii. 1 shows no 
trace of this identification. It cannot, therefore, be the source of the very 
old tradition in question. (2) The idea that Luke was a native of Antioch, 
or even Syria, could not arise from a passage in which a Lucius living in 
Antioch is called a Cyrenian. (3) Luke (Lucas) has nothing to do with the 
name Lucius, or Aev«ios, as it is commonly written in Greek, but is an 
abbreviation of Lucanus (perhaps also Lucilius, Lucillus, Lucinus, Lucinius, 
but certainly not Lucianus). It may be due to authentic tradition that in 
the Old Latin Bible, along with the thoroughly Greek cata Lucan (Evang. 
Palat. ed. Tisch. 232), we find not infrequently secundwm Lucanum, which is 
probably the original form. So Cod. Vindobon. ed. Belsheim, 1885, p. 1ff. ; 
Verc., Ambrosian., Corbei. in Bianchini, Hvang. Quadrupl. ii. 2, 208; Old 
Latin Bible Texts, ii. 85; further—as Turner (JTAS, 1905, June, p. 256f.) has 
recently proved by use of new material—in Cyprian’s Testimonia, also in 
Priscillian, ed. Schepps, 47. 4, and on a sarcophagus of the fifth century at 
Arles; cf. Schultze, Greifswalder Stud. S. 157; Mercati, JThS, 1905, April, 
p. 435. The present writer finds a Lucanus in Cypr. Hp. lxxvii. 3, lxxviii. 1, 
Ixxix.; a Lucas in August. Hp. clxxix. 1. He knows of no one bearing the 
name earlier than our evangelist. Cf. C. I. G. Nos. 4700k (in the add. vol. 
iii. 1189) and 4759 from Egypt. In Eus. H. H. iv. 2.3 the reading handed 
down is Aovkova (in gen.), but Rufinus has Luca, Syr. Lukia. 

5. (P. 2.) Clem. Recogn. x. 71 says in describing the great success of 
Peter’s preaching in Antioch: “Ita ut omni aviditatis desiderio Theophilus, 
qui erat cunctis potentibus in civitate sublimior, domus sue ingentem 
basilicam ecclesiz nomine consecraret, in qua Petro apostolo constituta est 
ab omni populo cathedra,” etc. Later writers, spinning out this thread, 


6 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


made the Theophilus of Luke a bishop of Antioch (pseudo-Hippol. at the 
close of the Const. Ap. ed. Lagarde, p. 284; ef. min. 293 in Tischend. N.T. 1. 
738), and finally identified him with the well-known bishop and apologete, 
circa 180; cf. Cotelier on Recogn. x. 71. For this, however, the author of 
the Recogn. is not to be held responsible. Nor can his graphic account be 
compared with the colourless statement in Const. Ap. vii. 46 to the effect that, 
after Zaccheeus (Luke xix. 2) and Cornelius (Acts x. 1), a Theophilus was 
appointed third bishop of Czesarea by the apostles. Along with the N.T., 
Eusebius’ Church History is the main source of Const. Ap. vii. 46, and this 
Theophilus of Czesarea is identical with the one (circa 190) mentioned in Eus. 
H. E. vy. 22. Whether the Theophilus mentioned as joint addressee in the 
seventh letter of Seneca to Paul (ed. Hase, iii. 478) is the same as Luke’s, 
cannot be decided. Without absolutely disputing the historicity of the 
person outright, Origen, Hom. i. in Luc. applied the name, Theophilus, to 
everyone who is loved by God—which is not even linguistically correct 
(better Jerome, Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 20, amicus vel amator der). Salvianus, 
Ep. ix. 18, goes so far as to say that Luke addressed the two books ad amorem 
det. A preacher under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, iii. 765 f., see 
above, p. 3, n. 1) infers, no doubt, simply from the title xpdaricre in Luke 
i. 3—which in Luke’s time meant just what Aaympédrare did later—that 
Theophilus was an imperial governor, and, like Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 7), 
had become a Christian while in that office. As to this it may be remarked 
that the prefects of Egypt had the title xpdrioros till about 160, and after 
that Aapmpédraros, but that senatorial rank need not be inferred from the 
latter ; cf. Wilcken in Hermes, 1885, S. 469f., 1898, S. 237; Berl. Agypt. 
Urkunden, i. 373, li. 373. 

6. (P. 2.) With regard to Luke as the brother referred to in 2 Cor. 
viii. 18 and his Gospel as that of Paul’s, see vol. ii. 385. The contradiction 
between this exegetical discovery and the much older tradition that Luke 
was written after Mark, and, consequently, after Paul’s death, was not 
noticed. Still, if Luke was occupied for some time in Philippi as an evan- 
gelist in the N.T. sense of the word, it may be that he is really intended in 
2 Cor. viii. 18, in an allusion to this work ; for 2 Cor. was written in Mace- 
donia, and in the interval between the we-sections of Acts xvi. 10 ff. and 
Acts xx. 5 ff. (§ 60). Even Iren. iii. 4. 1 began to exaggerate somewhat 
when he inferred from Acts xvi. 8 ff. (for he allowed the “we” to begin in 
xvi. 8) in contrast to xv. 39, as also from 2 Tim. iv. 11, that Luke was 
inseparably associated with Paul. This again was further pressed into an 
assertion that in the entire book of Acts he recorded only what he himself 
had experienced (Kus. H. £. iii. 4.7; Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii.; not yet true of 
Canon Mur. lines 34 f., see GK, ii. 54, and cf. ii. 28), That Luke had been a 
disciple of other apostles also (Iren. iii. 10.1, 14. 2) was the more easily 
inferred from Luke i. 2, if one saw in the mapnkodovOnkdrt dvobev maou 
of ver. 3 a reference to his accompanying the eye-witnesses as a disciple or 
a travelling-companion ; so probably Justin (Dval. ciii. vol. ii. 389), and 
clearly Kus, H. £. iii. 4.'7; Epiph. Her. lvii. 7; pseudo-Euthalius (Zacagni, 
421), This is not impossible linguistically (see vol. ii. 455), but is forbidden 
by the context. Luke, like Mark (vol. ii. 445, n. 3), was declared in the 
fourth century to have been one of the seventy, or seventy-two, disciples, 


> 


: THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 7 


Luke x. 1 (Adamantius, Dial. c. Marc. ed. Bakhuyzen, p. 10. 14; Epiph. 
Her. li. 11; Anaceph. ed. Pet. 188). The identification with the unnamed 
companion of Cleopas, Luke xxiv. 13-18, is much later (cf. Forsch. vi. 350). 
In the Acts of Paul (ed. Lipsius, p. 104. 2, 117. 5), Luke is joined with Titus, 
and instead of Crescens (2 Tim. iv. 10), is sent to Gaul, which explains the 
confused statements of Epiph. Her. li. 11. His work as evangelist came 
naturally to be regarded as a higher counterpart of his medical work, Eus. 
H, E. iii. 4. '7; Jerome, Epist. liii. 8; Paulinus Nol. Carm. xxvii. 424; 
Prologue to Acts in Wordsworth, N.7. Lat. ii. 2. 9, 3. 1. The passages, 
1 Cor. ix. 9, 1 Tim. v. 18, 2 Tim. ii. 6, were the more readily applied to the 
evangelist among Paul’s disciples (cf. Aug. Doctr. Christ. ii. 10. 15 ; Prol. to 
Gospels, N.T. Lat. ed. Wordsworth, i. 271. 5) because the bos was made his 
symbol from early times (see vol. ii. 399, n. 7),—in better taste, at least, than 
when Baronius, Annales ad a..58, n. 34, put forward the conjecture that the 
symbol was chosen in allusion to his name and the bos Luca or Lucanus, i.e. 
the elephant. A Greek legend appears to be the source of the tradition that 
Luke was unmarried, that he wrote his Gospel in Achaia and later than Matt. 
and Mark, and that he died in Bithynia at the age of seventy-four or eighty- 
four ; cf. Prol. Wordsworth, i. 269. 4 ff., 271. 3 ff, ii. 1.4; Niceph. Call. ii. 
43 says he died at eighty, in Hellas, where he had previously sojourned, first 
meeting Paul at seven-gated Thebes, that is to say, in Beotia. A glance at 
Acts xvi. 7-10 and a comparison of the Latin prologues shows that Beotia 
has arisen from Bithynia. Jerome combines the two statements of the Latin 
prologues, and says, provided that he is the author of the Preef. Comm. in Mat. 
(Vall. vii. 3) in Achaie Beoticeque (al. Bithynieque) partibus volumen condidit ; 
ef. Paulin. Carm. xix. 83, Creta Titwm sumpsit, medicum Boeotra Lucam. In 
357 A.D. the remains of Andrew and Luke were brought from Achaia, and 
Timothy’s from Ephesus, to Constantinople (Jerome, Vir. Ill. vii. contra 
Vigilant. ed. Vall. ii. 391; Chron. Anno 2372; Philost. H. EH. iii. 2; 
Theodorus Lector, ii.61 ; Niceph. Call. 1. 43). The origin of the tradition 
that Luke was a painter has not yet been made clear, even by E. v. Dob- 
schiitz, Christusbilder, ii. 267**-280**. According to Theodorus Lector, i. 1 
—if this is not an addition made by the compiler of the extracts (v. Dob- 
schiitz, 271**)—a picture of Mary supposed to have been painted by Luke 
was sent from Jerusalem to Constantinople by the empress Eudocia about 
440. Of. J. A. Schmid, De. Imagin. Marie a Luka Pictis, Helmstedt, 1714, 
n.2. Since the word ioropia: was used of paintings as early as Nilus, Ep. 
iv. 61, and ioropeivy with the Byzantians was equivalent to (wypadeiv, 
Theodore’s words (riv eixdva ths Oeordkou, iv 6 déaroNos AouKas Kabiordpnoer) 
certainly cannot be understood otherwise. But may not the whole myth go 
back originally to an early misunderstanding of the word ka@oropeiv? It is 
not Luke, to be sure, but Leucius, who repeatedly reports (xka@cordpnoev 2) 
concerning contemporary portraits of Christ and the apostle John, and it is 
he also who reports legends concerning Mary ; cf. the present writer—Acta 
Jo. pp. 214. 7, 215. 13, 223 f. 

7, (P.3.) Though Iren. iii. I. 1 (vol. ii, 398) gives the time and place 
of the other Gospels with more or less exactness, all he knows with regard to 
Luke is that it is the third in the order of composition. Perhaps Clement 
(vol. ii. 394 f.), or his teachers, had already inferred from the conclusion of 


8 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Acts that it, and the Gospel with it, were written just after the expiration of 
the two years mentioned, Acts xxviii. 30. Euthalius (Zacagni, 531) makes 
this same affirmation with regard to Acts. Jerome (Vir. Jil. vii.) concludes 
from the ending of Acts that it was written in Rome, and so intimates 
indirectly that it was written at the close of those two years. In Greek 
minuscules, at times Rome, also, however, the “ Attica belonging to Beeotia,” 
are mentioned as the place where Luke’s Gospel was written (Tischendorf, 
8th ed. i. 738; cf. the meaningless combination Achare Beotiwque in n. 6 
above, as if Bceotia did not belong to Achaia). Macedonia also was some- 
times spoken of as the place of composition of both Luke and Acts (Doctrine 
of the Apostles in Cureton, Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 32; an Arabic 
authority in Tischendorf, N. T. i. 738), a view which is easily explained by 
the early interpretation of 2 Cor. viii. 18, see above, n. 6. Ephrem (Hv. 
Concord. Expos. p. 286) probably gave Antioch as the place of the composition 
of the Gospel ; cf. Forsch. i. 54f. The later Syrian tradition, quoted on the 
same pages, gave Alexandria. This view grew on Greek soil, for according 
to Tisch. loc. cit. it is found in seven Greek minuscules. Consequently it is 
probable that it arose from Const. Ap. vii. 46, where, after Mark has been 
named as consecrator of Annianus, the first bishop of Alexandria, Luke is 
said to have ordained Abilius, the successor of Annianus. Since it could not 
be an apostle, a second evangelist was named along with the first from sheer 
perplexity. In short, nothing was known about it. In a later liturgical 
fragment (in Grenfell and Hunt, Greek Papyrt, Series ii. p. 170), Luke as 
apostle and archbishop of Alexandria is even placed before the apostle and 
archbishop Mark. Also the Syriac Martyrdom of Luke (edited by Nau, 
Revue de L’Orient Chrét. [1898] iii. 151 a contains nothing of historical 
tradition. 


§ 59. THE TWOFOLD RECENSION OF THE TEXT 
OF ACTS. 


In the preceding investigations it has been possible 
to proceed without entering, except incidentally, into 
questions of text criticism. Here, however, the case is 
different, and the investigation of both of Luke’s books 
depends at essential points—as, for example, in connection 
with the question of the author’s witness to himself in 
Acts—to a considerable extent upon the answer to the 
question in which of the records we possess the original 
form of the text. 

Recently Fr. Blass, following several earlier attempts 
in the same direction (n. 1), which were for the most part, 
however, barren of results, has energetically attempted 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 9 


to prove that two recensions of Acts are to be dis- 
tinguished, exhibiting characteristic differences in con- 
tents and style, both of which go back to very early 
times, and neither of which could have originated from 
the other by the ordinary processes of text tradition, 
ze. through unrelated interpolations, emendations, glosses, 
and scribal errors, but must have come—both of them— 
from the author himself. According to his view, Luke, 
who wrote Acts in Rome shortly after the two years 
mentioned in Acts xxvill. 30, revised the first draft of 
his book before he let it pass into Theophilus’ hands. 
The first copy (recension 8 or editto Romana) remained 
in the possession of Luke and his Roman friends, and 
naturally circulated chiefly in the West, while the second 
copy or improved edition (recension a or edition Antio- 
chena) predominated in the East. Blass limited his 
hypothesis, at the outset, strictly to Acts (ThStKr, 1894, 
S. 118), later, however, he broadened it to include the 
Gospel, but without making his case any stronger. 
According to Blass, the Gospel, which was written as 
early as Paul’s imprisonment in Cesarea, was afterwards 
revised and re-edited by Luke in Rome, so that the case 
here is the reverse of what we find in Acts, and recension 
8 is the improved second edition, recension a the first 
draft. For the present we confine our attention to Acts. 
To begin with, we must rid ourselves of the idea that 
we possess 8 only in one Greek MS.—perhaps the codex 
Bezee Cantabrigiensis (D)—which originally suggested 
these observations, or only in one complete translation. 
On the contrary, there is a large amount of material at 
our disposal (n. 3), on the basis of which it is possible 
to claim that for centuries a form of the text (8) was 
prevalent in different parts of the Church, varying widely 
throughout in contents and language from the text of 
Acts dominant later (a). This was the case in the West 
from Irenzus to Jerome. The fragments of the Old 


io INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Latin translation and the citations of a writer like 
Cyprian are sufficient to prove that this version, at 
least in its original form, which goes back to between 
200 and 240 a.p., is derived from a Greek text which 
is related to the text of our oldest Greek MSS. (SABC, 
etc.) in the way indicated above. It is possible that the 
latter text existed in the West in numerous exemplars 
long before Jerome’s time, but we cannot prove it. On 
the other hand, we know that Western readers, who were 
confined to their Latin versions, as the Roman interpreter 
of the Pauline Epistles, known as Ambrosiaster (370 a.D.), 
rejected the a text on the ground that it was interpolated 
by the Greeks (nn. 3, 5). So far as we know, it was not 
until a later date that the a text influenced appreciably 
the Latin texts of the West. The Greeco-Latin text of 
Codex D, written in the sixth century, is the outcome 
of very complicated developments, mixtures, and cor- 
ruptions, but nevertheless retains in its Greek portion 
important features of the form of Acts known to Irenzus, 
and to the first, unknown «wnterpres Latinus. The 
Alexandrian scholars, Clement and Origen, seem to have 
used a text practically identical with a (n. 2); but there 
must have been also a @ text which circulated in Egypt 
in their time, and which was highly esteemed, otherwise 
we are at a loss to understand why it was that the 
Sahidic, presumably the oldest Egyptian version, written 
possibly during Origen’s lifetime, while not adopting @ in 
its entirety, did take over important elements of it. These 
were afterwards removed in the later Egyptian version, 
the Coptic proper. It is possible that at this time a text 
existed in Egypt which represented a mixture of a and £. 
Such a text was found by the Syrian, Thomas of Heraclea, 
as late as the year 619, in the Anthony cloister in 
Alexandria, and he borrowed from it a number of read- 
ings belonging to 8, adopting some of them into his 
revision of the Philoxenian version, putting others on the 


: 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE ti 


margin as noteworthy variant readings. In this way 
Syrian scholars of the Middle Ages afterwards became 
acquainted with the fragments of a text which—in how 
pure a form we do not know—was at the basis of the 
oldest Syriac translation of Acts. Meanwhile, however, 
the @ recension triumphed in the Syrian Church also, and 
in the Bible which was used in the Syrian Church, the 
Peshito. Only scattered traces remain, showing affinity 
with the original text of the Syriac Acts, and these would 
not be noticed now save by a few (n. 3). Wherever we 
find traces of 8, whether in the West, in Egypt, or in 
Syria, it seems to represent the earlier form of the text, 
while a represents the later form. With those to whose 
historical sense these facts do not appeal further dis- 
cussion is useless. 

The @ text is not in our possession, but evidences that 
it existed at an early date in parts of the Church, widely 
separated from one another, put us under obligation to 


discover it. Gratitude is due to the philologian who has 


devoted so much energy and shown so much acumen in 
restoring it as far as was possible. The main difficulty 
in all the investigation arises from the fact that, with the 
exception of a number of fragments, 8 is preserved to us 
only in texts which are strongly mixed with a, or 
represent a predominantly. Since undoubtedly @ also 
dates back to a very early time, we are unable to say how 
early the process of mixing began at various points in the 
Church. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that 8, 
which possibly Irenzeus and the first Syrian and also the 
first Latin translator had before them in a pure form, 
could and presumably did undergo numerous changes 
through internal developments, apart from the influence 
of a, before it came into the hands of these writers. By 
no means all the variants from @ which we find it 
necessary to class with 8, because of difference from a, 
and similarity to 8, are at once to be regarded as 


12 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


necessarily an original part of &. As was natural, and as 
is proved by numerous examples, the most radical changes 
in the text of the N.T. were made as early as in the 
second century. 

Assuming then the existence of a 8 recension, in order 
to answer the question concerning the origin and relation 
of a and @ it is necessary to enter into details. In and 
of itself it is quite conceivable: (1) that 8 is a modi- 
fication of a, and that either this took place suddenly 
or developed gradually, appearing in the West some time 
between 120 and 150. After gaining a certain currency 
and authority here, it circulated in Syria and in Hgypt. 
It is also possible: (2) that 8 is the original form of the 
text which was deliberately worked over into the form @ 
by recensionists, more or less learned, who improved the 
style, and removed much that was unnecessary. This 
revised Acts, which was accepted by scholars and by the 
heads of the Church, circulated under their patronage 
and finally replaced 8 almost completely. It is further 
possible: (3) that @ and 8 are both original, if, as 
Blass assumes, the author issued two editions of his 
work, as was very frequently done in ancient times 
(n. 4). In favour of the first possibility is the un- 
deniable fact that texts which are undoubtedly spurious, 
e.g. Mark xvi. 9-20, or the apocryphal additions to 
Matt. xx. 28, were in circulation from Lyons to Edessa 
as early as the second and third centuries (vol. ii. 486, 
n. 9). In favour of the second possibility is the equally 
undoubted fact that from an early date changes were 
made in the N.T. text, partly for dogmatic, partly for 
stylistic, and partly for liturgical reasons. In many 
passages this caused either the complete or the almost 
complete disappearance of the original text from the 
Church (n. 5). Only here, as in almost every other 
instance of the kind, it is necessary to understand this 
revision ‘of the text as independent of the myth of a 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 13. 


canonisation of the N.T. writings in connection with the 
equally mythical rise of the Catholic Church about the 
year 170. For, while Rome, Lyons, and Carthage were 
parts of the Catholic Church, they retained 8 after as 
before the revision, and knew little of a until sometime 
in the fourth century, and to some extent refused to 
recognise it. It must also be borne in mind that, while 
Origen lamented the confusion of the N.T. text, and was 
the first to think of remedying it, he never became the 
text critic of the N.T. (GK, i. 74, A.). But, according 
to this second hypothesis, the revision in question was 
thoroughgoing and carefully planned, affecting contents 
as well as style, and indeed of such a character that it 
must have been made long before Origen’s time. The 
first hypothesis mentioned, namely, that of a gradual or 
sudden rise of 8 on the basis of a, is likewise out of 
harmony with the facts. If this were its origin, we 
should not have in @ simply single interesting sayings 
or narratives added, designed to enrich the book, nor 
should we have simply single instances where the 
narrative is rendered awkward by such additions, but 
we should have a systematic recasting of the text with- 
out essential enrichment of the contents, showing a 
general deterioration in the style. Only the third 
possibility remains. Decisive proof of the essential 
correctness of Blass’ hypothesis is to be found in the 
following considerations: (1) The facts to be found in 
8B and not in a are neutral in character. They are not 
such as would be excised, nor are they important enough 
to call for insertion. (2) Notwithstanding the difference 
in their contents, a and @ never really contradict each 
other. (3) Both recensions exhibit throughout the style 
characteristic of the larger part of the book, which is the 
same in both recensions. 

A few examples will suffice to make this clear. It 
has been previously remarked (above, p. 2) that the 


14 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tradition which makes Luke a native of Antioch is in 
agreement with the 8 text of Acts xi. 27, but could not 
well have originated from this text. Still less can 8 be 
a gloss suggested by the tradition. An interpreter or 
scribe who wanted to insert a marginal note in connection 
with a passage of Acts to the effect that Luke was a 
member of the Church in Antioch, or who wanted to 
incorporate this remark in the text, would have selected 
some other passage like xiii. 1, and would have written, 
kal éy Aounds 6 ’Avtioxeds (§ 60, n. 11). What follows in 
the 8 text after xi. 27, “And there was great rejoicing. 
And when we were assembled, one of them by the name 
of Agabus spoke,” etc., certainly does not sound as if it 
were an intentional addition, designed to indicate that 
the narrator was a member of this assembly. It seems 
to us rather to be the involuntary impression of the 
memory of the exalted state of feeling produced in the 
infant Church by the visit and messages of the Jewish 
prophets. The originality of the words is further proved 
by the genuine Lucan character of the language (n. 6). 
On the other hand, a could not have been produced from 
& by a corrector, since correctors who did not object to 
the sudden and repeated appearance and disappearance 
of “we” from xvi. 10 onwards could not well have 
rejected the “we” in this passage. Nor is the de- 
scription of the joyful state of feeling that prevailed 


in the Christian assemblies something exceptional in Acts — 


(il. 46, xv. 3, xvi. 34); it certainly was not objectionable 
to later readers. The only other hypothesis possible is 
to suppose that the author himself, when he revised the 
first draft (8) of his work, found the description of the 
gathering where he had been present not only unnecessary, 
but even out of keeping with the style of his outline 


sketch of conditions in the Church at Antioch during | 


the early years of its history (xi. 19-30). Accordingly 
he substituted a for 8. In chap. xii. we find in 8 a whole 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 15 


series of additions, part of which it would have been 
entirely impossible for a corrector to invent without the 
aid of knowledge derived from sources other than a, e.g. 
the seven steps which led down from the castle of Antonia 
to the street (xu. 10). Other of these additions are so 
harmless and so unnecessary, that they could not have 
arisen from the necessity of explaining the text (n. 7). 
On the other hand, they do not contain anything of a 
character which might have led a corrector to omit them. 
Since, however, there is nothing, either in contents or 
style, contradictory to a, it follows that this is another 
case where the author, in revising his book, cut out 
unnecessary details. The especial interest of the author 
in the continuance and condition of the Church of 
Antioch, which is apparent even in the common text 
of xii. 1, has, unless all the facts are deceptive, found 
‘in Ban especially vivid expression in the statement that 
Lucius of Cyrene was still living when Acts was written, 
whereas the other teachers of the Church of the years 
43-50 were already dead (n. 6). The statement of Acts 
XVill. 22 in a has often been taken to mean that Paul, 
after his first short visit in Ephesus and his landing in 
Ceesarea, visited Jerusalem. But this interpretation is to 
be rejected as being quite unsupported by the text, to say 
nothing of the surprise which one must feel at the entire 
lack of information concerning this visit to Jerusalem 
(n. 8). Luke says simply that Paul landed in Cesarea, 
greeted the Church in that city, and journeyed to Antioch. 
If the goal of this journey were Syria (ver. 18), that is to 
say Palestine (cf. xx. 3), it remains unexplained why he 
went no farther than Czesarea; or, if his objective point 
were Antioch, where he made a stay of some length 
(ver. 23), it is not clear why he went to Cesarea at all, 
instead of journeying directly to Seleucia, and thence to 
Antioch. We have also elsewhere similar cursory 
sketches of journeys, e.g. xx. 1-4 (n. 9), and, formally 


16 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


considered, the account in question lacks nothing; how- 
ever, it leaves the reader, who seeks a clear conception 
of what took place, unsatisfied. From @ alone we learn 
that Paul actually intended, when he left Corinth, to 
journey to Jerusalem, there to take part in the approach- 
ing feast, and that he urged the importance of this 
journey as an excuse for the brevity of his first visit 
in Ephesus (ver. 21). Afterwards, however, we learn 
(xix. 1) that Paul was prevented from carrying out 
this plan by an exhortation of the Spirit, by which he 
was directed to turn back to Ephesus (without continuing 
his journey from Cesarea to Jerusalem). The intention 
to go to Jerusalem suggests xx. 16, but not a single word 
in xvi. 21 suggests that the addition in 8 is borrowed 
from this passage. Similar cases where Paul’s own plans 
were set aside by a warning of the Spirit are to be found 
in xvi. 6f., according to B also in xvii. 15 (vol. i. 214, 
n. 7; Harris, Four Lectures, p. 47), and again later in 
xx. 8. Comparable also is the almost reverse case, where 
Paul refuses to be hindered by prophetic utterances from 
continuing his last journey to Jerusalem (xx. 23, xxi. 4, 


11-14). But here again it will be observed that the 


expression in xix. 1 is entirely original (n. 8 end). If 
there be no question that this revelation took place in 


Czesarea, then it cannot be regarded purely as a coin- — 


cidence that at this time Paul was among those who 
cultivated the gift of prophecy (xxi. 9), and that in one 
other passage, in which an account of such a revelation 
of the Spirit is given (xvii. 15, here again only in §), he 
was journeying in company with a prophet. The in- 
junction of the Spirit to Paul, “Return to Asia,” «ze. 
“Do not proceed further on the journey to Jerusalem,” 
is to be regarded as a prophetic utterance of the Church 


spoken by someone near the apostle (vol. i. 207, 227f., 


237, n. 6; vol. ti, 110 f.), as is true in all analogous 
cases, especially where direct address is used (xiii. 2, 


Se eS a a 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 17 


xxi. 11; but cf 8, xx. 3). Possibly it was the pro- 
phetically gifted daughters of Philip (xxi. 9) who “spoke 
to Paul through the Spirit” (cf xxi. 4), or, in other 
words, through whom the Spirit spoke to Paul (cf. xiii. 2, 
XX1, 11); just as it was the prophet Silas through whom 
the Spirit spoke in xvi. 6, 7, and, according to @, in 
xvii. 15 also. Is it conceivable that one whose only 
sources were a and his inkstand, should introduce these 
transactions into the narrative just in those passages 
where it can be proved historically that they are possible 
and really presupposed? And if, like ourselves, he had 
reached this conclusion by a process of combination, 
could he have failed to mention Silas and the pro- 
phetesses in Ceesarea? The only other thing which it 
is possible to suppose is that out of the fulness of his 
knowledge the author wrote down much in his first 
draft (8) which he cut out again in the revision (a), 
because it was unnecessary and in parts might even be 
misunderstood. The connection of the episode in xviii. 
24-28 with what precedes, and the resumption in xix. 1 
of the account of the journey interrupted in xviii. 28, 
shows an improvement in style in a as compared with £. 
But anyone who has had occasion to correct his own work, 
with a view to cutting out whatever seems superfluous 
and otherwise awkward, knows that in this process it is 
easy to lose some of the original freshness, and that not 
everything designed as an improvement is really such. 
In Acts xx. 12 a picture is spoiled in the a text with no 
corresponding gain, a picture which, to be sure, is only 
imperfectly developed in 8. Paul leaves the house where 
he had talked to the assembled congregation until the 
break of day. The narrator, with the greater part of the 
company of travellers, departs to the harbour and goes on 
board the ship, while Paul plans to follow by land some- 
what later. The last glimpse which Luke had, as the 
ship departed, was that of the Christians beckoning and 
VOL, IIL 2 


18 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


calling good-bye to him and his companions, and in then 
midst Paul holding the young man by the hand whom he 
had restored to life (n. 10). 

It has been supposed that, according to the common 
text of xxi. 16, the house of Mnason, where Paul and his 
numerous travelling companions (n. 9) were entertained, 
was in Jerusalem. It is peculiar, of course, that no men- 
tion of the arrival in Jerusalem is made until ver. 17. It 
is equally strange that Christians from Czesarea should 
accompany Paul and his companions all the way to Jeru- 
salem in order to secure lodging for him in the house of 
Mnason, notwithstanding the fact that in the large con- 
gregation in Jerusalem, where now, as earlier, Paul re- 
ceived a most cordial welcome (xxi. 17, cf. xv. 4), there 
must certainly have been several houses where entertain- 
ment would have been most gladly furnished him, and 
where assistance would have been rendered in caring for 
the numerous strangers. All these difficulties are cleared 
up by 8. Mnason lived in a village on the way from 
Ceesarea to Jerusalem. Paul and his companions were 
accompanied to this point by Christians from Cesarea, 
who provided him with entertainment for the one night 
with a good and aged Christian—perhaps the only well- 
to-do Christian—in a little congregation in Samaria or 
Sharon (Acts vii. 4-17, ix. 31-48, xv. 4). This is what 
is meant in a; but the abbreviation of the narrative pro- 
duced a certain lack of clearness. 

The text relations of Acts xv.—a chapter naturally 
much considered from the earliest times—are peculiar. 
Even in the early verses of the chapter (vv. 1-5) the 
witnesses from which our knowledge of 8 is derived 
show variations from a which at once give rise to the sus-_ 
picion that originally they were not a part of @ (n. 11). 
Even more in the case of vv. 20, 29—from which 
xxi. 25 cannot be separated—readings occur which it is 
impossible to reconcile with a, if this variant form be— 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 19 


correctly transmitted in our oldest MSS. and in the 
majority of -citations and versions—readings, therefore, 
which certainly cannot have the same author as a. Par- 
ticularly but not exclusively in connection with the decree, 
xv. 29, the following peculiarities are to be noticed: (A) 
The omission of kal wvixréy or Kal tod mu«rod ; (B) the 
famous saying : «al dca pr) Oérovew (OéreTe) Eavrois yevéo Oar, 
érépous (érépwm) wy mroveiv (rrovetre), which is frequently found 
after the enumeration of the four or three things from 
which the Gentiles were to abstain; (C) the addition 
pepopevor év (TO) ayliw mvevuate after eb mpdkere (n. 12). 
A is clearly a mutilation, since if «ai mu«rdv were a spuri- 
ous addition, the most natural place for its insertion would 
be in the decree itself, xv. 29, then in xv. 20, and least 
natural of all in xxi. 25. But as a matter of fact it is in 
xxi. 25 that evidence for this fourth item is strongest. 


_ Since, moreover, it is inconceivable that the author should 
_ have recorded the decree more fully in an incidental refer- 


ence (xxi. 25) than in the passage where he gives its 
original form (xv. 29), and in the discourse of the mover 
of the resolution (xv. 20), it follows that «al myirdv is 
genuine in all the cases where it occurs. While always 
retained in the East, before the time of Irenzeus and 
Tertullian it disappeared from the text commonly used in 
the Western Church. But that it belonged originally in 
the Western text is proved also by the custom of the 


Church in abstaining from the use of the flesh of animals 


which had been strangled, or which had died a natural 


death, as is witnessed by Tertullian; although he no 


longer found this passage in the text (n. 12). Nor is A 


to be regarded as a defect due merely to accident. It 
connects itself with a tendency variously manifested in 
other parts of the Church also. Only after the word 


“strangled” had been removed was it possible to make 
“)plood” refer to human blood, and to find here, as Tertul- 
lian did, a commandment against murder. In accordance 


SEK e 


20 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with this interpretation, the use of flesh offered to idols 
was made to refer to idolatrous worship itself (n. 13), and 
unchastity was narrowed to mean adultery. Thus we get 
the three mortal sins: Jdololatria, mechia, homicidium. 
The apostolic enactment, which had reference only to 
certain phases of moral life emphasised by the conditions 
of the time, became thus a sort of elementary moral 
catechism. C'is of the same general character, and like 
A was confined to the West, being the only text possessed 
by Irenzeus (who also gives A and B), and by Tertullian 
(who also gives A). It is true that in the Hast also the 
conclusion of the apostolic communication, which had a 
secular sound (ed mpafere, éoppwaGe, “So shall it be well with 
you. Farewell”), was given a moral and religious turn— 
the former phrase being taken as a general injunction to 
good conduct, and the latter being enlarged into a Chris- 
tian formula (n. 14). But this process was carried further 
in the West, and good conduct in general, which was left 
undefined, was referred to the power of the Holy Spirit in 
the sense of Phil. iii, 15 (D, Ireneus, Tertullian), which 
opened the way for an extension of Church morality. The 
secular valete was also stricken out (n. 14). How widely 
C was circulated in the West it is impossible to say; in 
the East it did not make headway. On the other hand, 
the Hast was the home of B. While this text was not 
known to Tertullian, unless all appearances fail this locus 
communis was accepted as a part of the apostolic decree 
by the apologist Aristides of Athens in 140, and by the 
apologist Theophilus of Antioch in 180. Moreover, in B 
alone (without A and C) xv. 20 and 29 are witnessed to 
by Origen, the Sahidic version, the Neoplatonist Porphory, 
and Greek cursives, and in xv. 29 by Thomas of Heraclea 
(un, 12). 

The spuriousness of the saying is proved by the fact 
that its omission is entirely inconceivable in view of the 
general tendency to construe the decree as a moral cate- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 21 


chism for those “turning from the Gentiles to God” 
(xv. 19), especially where this tendency had already ex- 
erted a strong influence upon the text (Tertullian). On 
the other hand, the addition of this “simple, true, and 
beautiful law, without question applicable to Christians,” 
as it is called in the Didascalia (Syriac ed. p. 2. 7), is 
fully explained by just this tendency. Direct ‘occasion 


_ for its addition among the Greeks in the East was given 
by the Didache, which was much prized by them. In 


the first part of this document, which was intended “ for 
the Gentiles” and appointed to be read to candidates for 
baptism (chaps. i.—vi., cf. vii. 1), this commandment stands 
at the very beginning (i. 2) along with the commandment 
to love God and one’s neighbour, while at the conclusion 


of the same part (vi. 3) restrictions regarding the use of 


food are mentioned, only one of which, however, is un- 


conditional, namely that relating to things offered to 
idols. Since this writing was regarded as a teaching of 


the apostles, it was deemed all the more permissible to 


enrich from this source the apostolic decree, parts of which 
had become obsolete (§ 62). That this was the origin of 
the insertion is betrayed also by the fact that the sentence 
structure is not always smooth where these words are 


incorporated in the text (n. 15). The insertion was made 


in the East between 110 and 140, soon after which B 


_began to circulate in the West, though its acceptance was 
by no means general. Tertullian does not have B, 


although it is found in Irenzeus, Cyprian, and many later 
Latin writers, also in D. In Ireneus and D alone, how- 


ever, it is fused with the two Western variants, A and C. 
It may be considered certain that the author of Acts was 
not responsible for this mixtwm compositum, nor for any 


one of its three elements, all of which give an interpreta- 


‘tion unhistorical in character. The only reason why A 


and C can be regarded as deteriorations of the original 8 
text is the fact that they originated and circulated in the 


22 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


region where the f recension predominated ; while B 
could just as easily have been inserted first in an ex- 
emplar of the a text, from which it found its way into 
copies of a as also of 8. 

Although in this important point and in many others 
less important, readings, which Blass explains as part of 
the original text, prove to be only deteriorations of it 
dating back to an early time, the essential correctness of 
his hypothesis remains unaffected. On the other hand, 
his extension of the theory to the Gospel of Luke is 
untenable. The text which Blass gives us as the second 
or Roman edition of the Gospel, prepared by Luke him- 
self, is in reality nothing but a bold attempt to restore 
what is known as the Western text (n. 16). The question 
which has been answered in so many ways as to the value 
of this form of the text—it can hardly be called a recen- 
sion—is by no means confined to the third Gospel, but 
arises also in connection with the other Gospels and 
the Epistles of Paul. The only difference in this regard 
between the Gospels on the one hand, and the Epistles 
and Acts on the other, is occasioned by the existence of 
Tatian’s Diatessaron. While it is true that this work of 
Tatian’s is as yet far from being fully restored, it is never- 
theless a valuable source, which, taken together with the 
Western witnesses, enables us to determine accurately the 
age of many Western readings, and also to explain the — 
circulation of this form of the text from the Rhone to the 
Tigris. In addition, we have for the Gospel of Luke, and 
for this Gospel alone, the Gospel edited by Marcion in 
Rome about 145, our knowledge of which is far from com- 
plete, but much more accurate than it once was (GK, i. 
585-718, ii. 409-529). It is not strange, therefore, that 
in the case of Luke the variation of the so-called Western 
teat—which here also may be designated as 8—from the 
text (a) preserved in our oldest MSS. and the majority of 
Greek witnesses comes more clearly to view than in the 


ae 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 23 


case of the other Gospels, and particularly the Epistles. 
But throughout the question is essentially the same. 
There must be made a much more extended study of 8B— 
in the widest sense in which 8 is used—before a unani- 
mous conclusion can be reached by the critics. There are 
as yet no definite results, the statement of which would 
properly find place in a text-book. But those who hold 
that our oldest MSS. (NB) are to be dated about 200 
years later than Marcion, Tatian, and Irenzeus, and who 
have some feeling for the difference between originality 
which is naive and uniformity due to liturgical, dogmatic, 
and stylistic considerations, must in a general way agree 
on the following points: (1) Very much that is original 
both as regards contents and form is preserved in 8, 
which was of a character that, for the reasons indicated 
above, early led to changes, and after the close of the 
third century to excision by learned recensionists of the 
text (Lucian, Hesychius, and Pamphilus). (2) A large 
number of arbitrary additions and verbal modifications 
were made in 8 throughout the whole of the period during 
which the text of the N.T. remained without systematic 
revision, and when it developed without the regular con- 
trol either of the Church or of scholars. More of these 
additions and modifications were made in the more naive 


period from 150 to 200 than later, and in the Gospels 
much more than in the other N.T. books. This was 


natural, in the first place because the recollection of 
parallel texts led to the enrichment of each of the Gospels 
from the parallels, and, in the second place, because there 
were reports concerning words and deeds of Jesus which 
had not found their way into the four Gospels, but which 
were retained in the oral tradition until the beginning of 
the second century, and then continued to survive in 
writings like the five books of Papias. (8) The difficult 
problem will be solved to be sure only approximately, at 
any rate, however, only as two extremes are avoided: on 


24 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the one hand, superstitious reverence for our so-called best 
MSS. which is often accompanied by a corresponding con- 
tempt for much older traditions is to be laid aside. On 
the other hand, the critic must beware of an unhealthy 
fondness for all the interesting products and excrescences 
of the wild tradition of the second and third centuries, and 
of the feeling that goes with it that the learned recen- 
sionists from 800 onwards were simple destroyers of the 
text, to be compared, if not as regards orthodoxy, at least 
in matters of taste, to the enlightened revisers of German 
Church hymns in the rationalistic period. Applying these 
principles, we shall find in the case of Luke and of other 
N.T. writings in the 8 text, of which here also D may be 
regarded as our clearest witness: (1) a number of apocry- 
phal additions (n. 17), and (2) many cases where words 
are substituted and transposed, often for very trivial 
reasons (n. 18). (3) We shall find also a number of 
texts, giving material for the most part important, and 
exhibiting an originality such as could not have been 
invented, which were wrongly set aside by the tradition 
of the third and fourth centuries (n. 19). This com- 
plicated relation between 8 and a is to be observed in all 
the Gospels, being more marked in Luke than in the 
others for the reasons indicated above. But we are not 
confronted in Luke as in Acts with parallels which make 
equal claims to acceptance, but the question is always an 
alternative between what Luke did write and what he 
could have written. This conclusion with regard to the 
texts of Luke does not in any way weaken the other con- 
clusion that in Acts we have a twofold form of the text. 
This fact, however, is of importance in connection with 
the question as to the origin of Luke’s work. In deter- 
mining his witness concerning himself in Acts, a and 6 
are to be treated as of equal value. Whether the author 
who edited the second part of his work twice was what he 
claims to be, or only a compiler and fabricator of a some- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 2% 


what later period, does not enter into the question here 
under discussion. 


1. (P. 8.) According to Semler (Wetstenwi libelli ad crisin NT%. 1766, 
p. 8), Jo. CLERIcUS (in what writing?) under the pseudonym of Critobulus 
Hierapolitanus was of opinion that Luke published Acts twice; and 
Hemsterhuis (where?) expressed a similar opinion in regard to still other 
N.T. writings. Deserving of mention here is also Acta apost. ad codicis 
Cantabrig. fidem ita rec. Bornemann, ut nunc demum divini libri primordia 
eluceant, Pars 1, Grossenhain and London, 1848. In the winter of 1885-86, 
in the New Testament seminar in Erlangen the present writer proposed as 
subject for the prize competition: “ Untersuchung der sachlich bedeutsamen 
Eigentiimlichkeiten des cod. D in der AG” (Investigation of the essentially 
significant peculiarities of Cod. D in Acts), and required that the spread of 
these variants among Latin, Greek, Egyptian (Sahzdzc), and Syrian writers 
should be taken into account as far as this was possible for a student, using 
Tischendorf’s apparatus, According to the purpose of the present writer at 
that time, the objective point which he hoped to see the investigation reach, 
and which Fr. Gleiss, now pastor in Westerland on the island of Sylt, in some 
measure approached, was: (That there is presented in this recension) “either 


the first draft of the author before publication, or the copy which the author 


used with his supplementary marginal notes.” Further than this the present 
writer had not advanced, but was not surprised when Fr. Buass, without 
knowing his view, came forward with his more definitely conceived and 
more thoroughly elaborated hypothesis in the following publications: “ Die 
Textiiberlieferung in der AG” (ThStKr, 1894, S. 86-119) ; Acta apostolorum 
sive Luce ad Theophilum liber alter, Ed. philol., Gdttingen, 1895 ; “ Uber die 
verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Le” (NKZ, 1895, S. 712- 
725; cf. NKZ, 1896, S. 964-971); “De duplici forma actorum Luce” 
(Hermathena, 1895, ix. 121-1438, as against Chase in the Critical Review, 
1894, p. 300 ff.) ; ThStKr, 1896, 8. 486-471; Acta ap. secundum formam que 
videtur Romanam, Lips. 1896 ; Ev. sec. Le. secundum f. R., Lips. 1897, with an 
extensive introduction ; and, again, recently in ThStKr, 1900, 1 Heft. Those 
who expressed themselves as substantially in favour of this view were E. 


_ Nestiez, ChW, 1895, Nos. 13-15; cf., by the same author, Philologica sacra, 


1896 ; ThStKr, 1896, 8. 102-113 ; Zock ER (Greifswalder Studien, 1895, S. 129- 
142); BetsEr, Die Selbstverteidigung des Pl wm Gl (Bibl. Stud. ed. Barderhewer, 
Bd. i. 3, 189) ; Beitrdge zur Erkl. der AG auf Grund der Lesearten des cod. D 
und seiner Genossen, 1897. Against Blass there have written, among others, 
P. Corssen in GGA, 1896, S. 425 ff, and B. Wutss, Der cod. D in der AG, 
1897. Of recent literature are mentioned: Port, Der abendl. Text der AG und 
die Wirquelle, 1900; Coppierers, De historia teatus actor. ap., Louvain, 1902 ; 
Ernst, “Die Blass’sche Hypothese und die Textgeschichte,” Z{NT W, 1903, 
S. 310-320. 

2. (P.10.) Cf. Griesbach, Symbol. crit. ii. 457-468. On the addition to 
Acts xv. 20, which, as has been recently attested, Origen also used, see n. 11. 

3. (Pp. 10,11.) A survey of the sources of recension 8 seems necessary : I. 
The Greek witnesses with which we are concerned are (1) the Greek and Latin 


26. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Cod. D sxc. vi., of which, until recently, Bezw Cod. cantabrigiensis, ed. 
Scrivener, Cambridge, 1864 (now in the phototype edition, 2 vols. Cantabrig. 
1899), has been the best edition to use. Cf. also the collation in NT%i. 
Supplimentum, ed. Nestle, 1896. For criticism, cf. D. Schulz, Disputateo de 
cod. D, 1827; OCredner, Beitr. zur Einl. (1832) i. 452-518; Rendel Harris, 
cod. Bese Cantabr. 1891 (Texts and Stud. ii. 1); by the same author, Four 
Lectures on the Western Text, 1894; Chase, The Syriac element in the teat of 
Cod. Bezw, 1893 ; furthermore the literature inn. 1. The Greek text of Acts 
Vili. 29-x. 14, xxi. 2-10, xxi. 15-18, xxii. 10-20, xxii. 29-xxvili. 31 is wanting 
in D, and the defects of the Latin text do not coincide fully with these, 
inasmuch as the latter is written on the front of the leaf to the right of the 
Greek text which is upon the back of the preceding leaf. In addition, 
but only here and there of significance, are (2) Cod. H Laudianns, Oxon 
(seec. vi.) Greek and Latin, ed. Tischendorf, 1870, in Monwmenta Sacra, ix. ; 
(3) cod. min. 137, sec. xi. (al. xiii.) in Milan; for the last four chapters 
newly compared by Blass, ef. Acta, ed. minor, p. xxi; fully compared by 
Mercati for Hilgenfeld ; Actus apost. gr. et lat. 1899, p. ix. The collation 
of Min. 58 (Bodlei. Clarke, 9) in Pott (Der abendl. Text. der AG und die 
Wirquelle, 1900, S. 78-88) offers only a little that is of value. Presumably 
there lies still in the minuscules, as well as in the Greek writers, a great deal 
of undiscovered material. ‘To the latter belongs especially Irenzeus, although 
he speaks to us almost entirely through a Latin translation; to a certain 
extent Tertullian also, inasmuch as he read the N.T. not in the Latin transla- 
tion, but in the original. “ Traces of recension B, perhaps due to dependence 
upon an older commentary, have been proved by Harris, Four Lect. pp. 91-96, 
and Conybeare, “‘On the Western text of the Acts as evinced by Chrysostom” 
in AJPh, xvii. 2. A trace of the 8 text is contained in Pionius, Vita Polyc. 
chap. ii. (of the fourth century, see GGA, 1882, S. 289 ff.) ; for if the journey 
of Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1 through Galatia to Asiais there intended (cf. Lightfoot, 
Apostolic Fathers, Part I. vol. i. Ign. Polyc. 447), then the words péAAwv 
hourdy améva eis ‘IepoodAvpa would be based upon an inexact recollection 
of 8 xix.1. IJ. The Latin witnesses all go back to the old Latin translation. 
This seems to be preserved in an almost uncorrupted form (1) in the frag- 
ments of a Paris palimpsest (Acts ili. 2-iv. 18, v. 23—viii. 2, ix. 4-23, xiv. 
5-23, xvii. 34—xvili. 19, xxili. 8-24, xxvi. 20-xxvii. 13), edited by Berger, Le 
palimpseste de Hlewry, Paris, 1889; cf. JTRS, 1906, p. 454 f. (designated in 
Tischendorf as reg. in Wordsworth, ii. p. ix as h); (2) in the citations in the 
writings of Cyprian (cf. Corssen, Der cypr. Text der Acta ap. 1892). Portions 
also in the works of Augustine, Ambrosiaster (see below, n. 5, and vol. i. 
553f.), Lucifer, and others ; ¢.g.in a writing, de prophetis et prophetiis (from 
Cod. 133 of St. Gall, published in Miscell. Casinese, parte ii. No. iv. p. 21 ff.), 
and in the Martyrologium of Ado; cf. Quentin in Revue Bénédict, 1906, p. 4 ff. 
Mixed texts are exhibited in many Bibles which give the Vulgate in other 
books of the N.T., namely, (3) the so-called Gigas in Stockholm (ed. Belsheim, 
AG und Ap. aus dem Gigas, Christiana, 1879; (4) Cod. Paris, Lat. 321, 
especially important for chaps. i—xiii., edited in part by Berger in Notzces 
et extracts des mss. xxxv. 1, 169-208, fully collated by Blass (ed. min. p. xxv) ; 
ef. Haussleiter, 7hLb, 1896, No.9; Blass, ThStKr, 1896, S. 436 ff. ; cf. both of 
the above for (5) Cod. Wernigerodensis Z* 81, collated by Blass; (6) Paris 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS oy 


Lat. 6 (Bible of Rosas, see Wordsworth, ii. p. vii; Berger, Hist. de la Vulg. 
p- 24f.), partly in text, partly on margin; (7) a Provengal N.T. ed. Clédat, 
Paris, 1887. III. The Sahidic translation, almost entire (i. 1-xxiv. 19, xxvii. 
27-38) in Woide-Ford, Append. cod. Alex. 1799, pp. 106-167 ; the lacune filled 
out in part by Amélineau, ZfAgSp, 1886, pp. 112-114, and by other as yet 
unedited fragments ; see Scrivener-Miller, Introd. to the crit. of the N.T.4 ii. 
135f. IV. It has been shown from the commentary of Ephrem on Acts, for 
the most part preserved in an Armenian catena, and from several passages in 
his commentary on the Pauline Epistles, that the oldest Syriac version of 
Acts coincides in many decisive points with Cod. D (Harris, Four lectwres, 
pp. 22-51). The later Peshito has retained, as in the Pauline Epistles, many 
remnants of this oldest Syriac version (GK, ii. 556-564). Very little light 
has been cast upon them. At all events, Thomas of Heraclea, who in the 
year 616, in the monastery of St. Anthony in Alexandria, revised the so-called 
Philoxenian version of the N.T. which arose in the year 508, and who 
employed for Acts and the catholic Epistles one (for the Gospels two or three) 
Greek MS. of that monastery, gathered from this MS. and translated into 
Syriac a considerable number of readings which agree in substance with 8. 
Some of them he introduced into the text, calling attention to them, however, 


by means of asterisks ; some he placed in the margin beside the reading given 
in the text. This indicates evidently that both sorts of readings were foreign 


to the older Philoxeniana, Still the question requires renewed investigation ; 
cf. eg. Gwynn, Hermathena (1890), vii. 294f. 301. In what follows, these 
Syriac readings, as elsewhere the whole text of Thomas of Heraclea, have 
been designated for the sake of brevity as S*. 

4, (P. 12.) Blass, ed. maj. p. 32; ed. min. p. vi, gives as examples of 
works which were twice edited by their authors :—Demosthenes, Philipp. iii. ; 
Appolodorus, Chron.; Longinus, Nom. Attica; Cicero, Academ.; and, in 
addition, a remark of Galen (ed. Kiihn, xvii. 1. 79) concerning the marginal 
notes of his own writings. Zockler, Greifswalder Stud. 1382 f., adds the three 
editions of Tertullian, c. Marc. i. (also adv. Judwos); a double edition of 
Lactantius, Inst.; Eusebius, de Mart. Pal.; and other instances from the 
Middle Ages. Cf. also what Sedulius (ed. Huemer, p. 172) says concerning 
triple editions of the writings of Origen and the jurist Hermogenianus 
originating with the authors themselves. 

5. (Pp. 10, 12.) Ambrosiaster on Gal. i. 1 ff. (Ambrosw Opera, ed. Bened. 
ii. app. p. 214; Souter, Study of Ambros. p. 199f.) cites the decree to all 
appearances substantially complete, “Non molestari eos, qui ex gentibus 
eredebant, sed ut ab his tantum observarent, id est a sanguine et fornicatione, 
et idololatria.” Thereupon he attacks the sophiste Grecorwm, who imagine 
that they are able to observe these articles by their own reason and strength. 
Then he rejects the interpretation of a sanguine as homicidiwm, and wishes to 
have this understood correctly according to Gen. ix. 4, a sanguine edendo cum 
carne. Then, p. 215: “ Denique tria hac mandata ab apostolis et senioribus 
data reperiuntur, que ignorant.leges Romane, id est ut observent se ab 
idololatria, et sanguine, sicut Noé, et a fornicatione. Que sophiste 
Grecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a sanguine abstinendum, 
adulterarunt scriptarum, quartum mandatum addentes ‘et a _ suffocato 
observandum,’ quod puto nune Dei nutu intellecturi sunt, quia jam supra 


28 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dictum erat, quod addiderunt.” On the use of recension 8 by Ambrosiaster, 
gee vol. i. 553f. On his attitude to the Greek text, see GK, i. 34. Even 
impartial Greeks like Origen (in Osee; tom. xxxil. 32 am Jo. Delarue, iil. 
438, iv. 455), and even an Epiphanius (Ancor. 31), recognised that not only 
stylistic, but dogmatic scruples of the orthodox had altered to a great extent 
the biblical text of the Church. 

6. (Pp. 14,15.) Acts xi. 27 8 shows the linguistic character of Luke. Aside 
from Jude 24 and a citation in Heb. i. 9 we find dyadAlacis only in Luke 
i. 14,44; Acts ii. 46. He employs the verb also in Luke i. 47, x. 21; Acts 
xvi. 34. He alone, following the classical usage, has, Acts xxvill. 3, ovo- 
tpépev =“ gather together” (“zusammenraffen”); xix. 40, xxiii. 12, cverpodn, 
“mob” (“ Zusammenrottung”). With the same meaning, the verb, according 
to B, Acts xvi. 39, xvii. 5; textually uncertain, and with another meaning is 
avotpépecba (=avvavacrpéper da), Matt. xvii. 22; Actsx.41; Cod.D. The 
word gives a graphic picture of the way in which the crowds collect about 
and press upon the prophets. The text of D is confirmed in essentials by d, 
Paris, 321, the Bibles of Rosas and Wernigerode ; by Augustine, de Sermone 
Dom. in Monte, lib. ii. 17, §57 ; Ado on Ides of Febr. (Quentin, Revue Benedict, 
1906, p. 4), and the writing de Prophetis, p. 21. Inthe last writing xi, 27-28 
is quoted with the introduction: “et in actibus apostolorum sic legimus.” 
Immediately connected, however, with this citation is the following: “Et 
alium in locum: ‘Erant etiam in ecclesia prophetz et doctores Barnabas et 
Sailus (read Saulus), quibus manus imposuerunt prophets, Symeon qui 
appellatus est Niger, et Lucius Cirinensis, qui manet usque adhue, et Ticius 
conlactaneus, qui acciperunt responsum ab spiritu sancto, unde dixit: 
‘segregate mihi Barnabam et Saulam,’” etc. Also in this citation there must 
be some trace of 8. That a and 8 vary widely from each other in this passage 
appears from the remarkable variants of D (év ois after dddoxada [this also 
in Vulgate] ‘Hpaddov «al rerpdpxov) and Paris, 321 (secundum unamquamque 
ecclesiam). In the text given above, before or after conlactaneus, which would 
otherwise be unintelligible, a genitive belonging to it, either ¢jus or Herodis 
tetrache, has at all events dropped out, in addition, however, probably also 
Manen before conlactaneus. This last omission could perhaps have arisen 
mechanically from the similarity of MANAZN to MANET, which stands a 
few words before it. But the entire citation, in all its original variations, could 
never be explained from a false reading of the name Manen. Ticius is for 
Titus ; cf. the variants Turov, Tervov, Acts xviii. 7, a difference which the Latins 
did not express in the genitive Titi ; see Wordsworth, ad loc. Since Paul, a 
few years later, took Titus (Gal. ii. 1) with him from Antioch to Jerusalem, 
Luke could have mentioned him very naturally in this passage. How the name 
Ticius or Titus in this passage could be otherwise explained, is unknown to 
the present writer. The most remarkable variant, however, is the addition 
to the name of Lucius of Cyrene: qui manet usque ad huc, i.e. ds péver ews 
dprv; cf. 1 Cor. xv.6. All must acknowledge that this cannot be an arbitrary 
addition of a writer citing Acts, or the gloss of a later copyist. It can have 
been written only at the time when Lucius of Cyrene was still alive, and 
indeed by the same man, who, in this passage, according to all recensions of 
the text, by the enumeration of the teachers and prophets of Antioch,—persons 
who, with the exception of Paul and Barnabas, are wholly unimportant for 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 29 


the further narrative,—has shown his especial interest in this Church, and 
according to 8 (Acts xi. 27) has made himself known as a member of this 
Church about 40 a.p. It is Luke, then, who allowed these and other remarks 
of interest for his friend Theophilus to appear in his first edition. In the 
revision of his work preparatory to a second edition, he might have thought 
of a larger circle of readers, and a longer continuing circulation of his book, 
and therefore struck out the statement concerning Lucius, which after a short 
time might not agree with the fact. Luke wrote at a time when there was 
living at least one of the men who about 43-50 had been busy as teachers and 
prophets in Antioch, while others, at all events, the Simon Niger mentioned 
above, probably also Paul and Barnabas, were already dead. The especial 
interest of Luke in Antioch is also confirmed by the fact that in vi. 5 the 
home of only one of the seven men, 7.¢. of Nicolas of Antioch, is given. 

7. (P.15.) The clause év rf Iovdaia, xii. 1 (8), is not, as though ris stood 
in its place, a nearer definition of rjs éxxAnoias which might have appeared 
necessary to a later reader, but indicates the scene of the story, xii. 1-20, in 
contrast to Antioch, the scene of xi, 19-30, Oi dd rips éxxAnoias is good 
Greek (Kiihner-Gerth, i. 457) =Church members (cf. xv. 5a)= of mucroi, ver. 3 
(8), entirely without regard to any particular place or the congregation of any 
locality. That it is a question concerning such persons in Jerusalem and 
Judea and not in Antioch follows clearly enough from the personal and other 


particulars of the account. A reader who felt the loss of an expressed subject of 


dpeorov eorw in ver. 3 would have introduced rodro, as several translators (e.g. 
Lucifer) have done. The text 8,7 emtyeipnors adrod emt tovs muarovs, is too 
original in its manner of expression to be ranked as a gloss. In the N.T. 
emtxeipnows does not occur elsewhere, and éemiyepety only in Luke i. 1; Acts 
ix, 29, xix. 13. Moreover, the feminine subject following the neuter predi- 
cate (Matt. vi. 34; 2 Cor. ii. 6) does not look like the work of a glossarist. 
Such a one would have supplied the need in ver. 5 of completing eérnpetro év 
7h pvdakh by mention of the guards, with words taken from ver. 4. The io 
Ths omeipns Tod Baowéws extends beyond ver. 4, and does not indicate the 
4x4 soldiers entrusted with the guarding of Peter’s person, but the whole 
cohort (cf. x. 1, xxi. 31, xxvii. 1) which served as a garrison for the building, 
—probably the Antonio,—and whose duty it was to station the various sentries 
(ver. 10) in continuous relays. The words kcaréByncav rods émrd Babpods kai 


- which 8 (ver. 10) offers between efeAOdvres and mpondAGov can only have been 


written by one who knew the locality. In xxi. 35, 40, where the stairs are 


- mentioned which connected the Antonio not with the street, but directly with 


the Temple Area, no one could hit upon these seven steps by guess and then 
introduce them with the article as if well known to the reader. The seven 
and eight steps at the Temple gate in Ezek. xl. 22, 26, 31, in which Jerome 
found great mysteries (Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 2. 18, 111; cf. Origen, Fragm. in 
Jo. xi. 18, ed. Preuschen, 547. 21), explain nothing. On the contrary, it is 
quite plausible that Luke, who introduced for the first time at this point, 
unchanged, the story which evidently arose in Jerusalem, and was probably 
found by him in an older writing, upon looking over what he had written 
removed these words as being superfluous and ill adapted to foreign readers. 
8. (P. 15.) Belser has recently (Bibl. Stud. i. 3. 141 ff. 5 Ausftihrlicher 
Beitrdge, S. 8, 89 ff.) not only maintained the formerly prevalent interpre- 


30 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tation of xvili. 22 of the a text, but introduced it into 8 also. Paul is 
supposed to have journeyed from Caesarea to Jerusalem, and, after he had 
wandered from Antioch through Galatia and Phrygia, according to xix. 1 B, 
once more to have entertained the thought of returning to Jerusalem, 
instead of going finally to Ephesus, as he had promised. The Spirit, 
however, prevents him from carrying out this plan, and compels him to 
keep his promise. In the first place, as far as a is concerned, (1) the bare 
dvaBds (ver. 22) cannot indicate a journey from Cesarea to Jerusalem. The 
18 passages in the N.T. (3, Luke; 7, Acts) where dvaBaivew cis ‘Iep. occurs, 
prove that this qualification is indispensable, as well as eis ’Avridyeay, 
xiv. 26, xv. 30, xviii. 22, An absolute dvaSaivey, John vii. 10, near the 
thrice recurring dvaf. eis rHv éoprny, or John xii. 20, where Jerusalem is the 
scene of the previous events, and where, in addition, attendance upon the 
feast is given as the purpose in view, can scarcely be used for comparison ; 
for, according to a, Jerusalem, in Acts xviii., has not yet been named at all 
as the destination (ver. 18=Syria; ver. 21=only that Paul must make one 
more journey before his permanent settlement). The meaning of dvaBaivew 
here is either “to go ashore” (cf. Matt. iii. 16), or, according to the Greek 
notion, to go wp from the harbour into the city, z.e. from the shore inland. 
Cf. xaraBaivery (Cod. D, xareAGév Textus rec.), Acts xiii. 4 of the wandering 
from Antioch to the seaport ; xx. 13 D and elsewhere xareA@dvres from the 
land to the harbour and ship. (2) The Church in Jerusalem is nowhere 
called simply 7 éxxAyoia, cf. rather vill. 1, xi. 22. On xii. 1, see n. 7. 
Chap. viii. 3, following viii. 1, proves nothing aside from the fact that at 
the time of the events of viii. 1-3 the local Church of Jerusalem (v. 11) was 
still essentially identical with the Christendom which Paul had persecuted 
(cf. Acts ix. 1, 31; 1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 22f.). Only the Church, there- 
fore, of the place which is mentioned (xi. 26, xv. 3 Antioch; xv. 4 
Jerusalem) can be meant: in this instance the Church of Caesarea. It is 
not easy to see why the Church of Cesarea, which at that time had been so 
long in existence, might not have been called éxxAyjoia as well as those 
which were much younger (Acts xiv. 28, xv. 41, xvi. 5; 1 Thess. i. 1; 
Rom. xvi. 1, 4). But as for xix. 1 8, it is unthinkable that Paul, just after 
he had, as alleged, visited Jerusalem, and had made the long journey from 
that place vid Antioch and through Asia Minor as far as the neighbourhood 
of Ephesus, suddenly decided to journey again to Jerusalem, and in doing 
so, after having almost reached the end of a month’s journey, to return 
again to its starting-point. This would be exactly an droorpépew, and, on 
the other hand, the continuation of his journey would be merely the com- 
pletion of a journey already nearly finished. The 8 text reads rather the 
opposite. And what then would be the ra dvrepixd pépy which Paul would. 
have had to wander through, after he had already traversed the land of the 
Galatians and Phrygia (ver. 23), in order to reach Ephesus? He is indeed, 
according to xviii. 23, already on the border of Asia in the narrowest sense 
of the term (as used by Luke, vol. i. 186f.), and only a few days distant from 
Ephesus, and the short journey thither leads through 4 xdro ’Agia (vol. i. 
187, line 16; Aristides, Hpist. de Smyrna, ed. Dindorf, i. 766; Pausan. 
i. 4. 6). It cannot be doubted, then, that Luke xix. 1 6 refers to what 
precedes xviii. 23, or rather that xviii. 23 anticipates the journey of Paul, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 31 


/ and has so far described it that xix. 1 epyera cis “Efeoov could immediately 
follow. Even in xviii. 24, Luke goes back in time before the point reached 
in ver. 23 ; for what is related in xviii. 24-28 did not take place after Paul 
had come to Phrygia vid Ceesarea and Antioch, and so had arrived in the 
vicinity of Ephesus, but occupies a great part of the intervening time 
between the first visit of Paul in Ephesus (xviii. 19-21) and his return 
thither (xix. 1). After this episode, and before resuming the narrative of 
the journey, interrupted in xviii. 23 (xix. 1, dreAOav =xviii. 23, Suepydsuevos), 
and before giving an account of Paul’s settlement in Ephesus, Luke turns 
back to an earlier point in the narrative (xix. la), and explains how it 
happened that Paul had not carried out his purpose to visit Jerusalem on 
this journey. According to the marginal reading of Thomas of Heraclea, 
from which D differs only in the matter of the weaker troorpédeww, instead 
of trdorpede, xix, 1 reads: @édovros dé rod LdvAov kara ryv idiav BovAnv 
mopeverbat eis ‘IepoodAupa, cirev ait Td mveipa’ “irdorpede eis Thy ’Aciay.” 
Cf. above, p. 26, line 30f.; further, Ephrem, in Harris, Fowr Lectures, p. 48 ; 
marginal reading of the Bible of Rosas, and Ado (Quentin, p. 7), which 
describes the Journey of Acts xvili. 18-xix. 1 as follows: “Et inde (from 
Corinth) navigavit in Syriam et venit Ephesum et inde Cesaream et 
(therefore not to Jerusalem) Antiochiam et Galatiam regionem et Frigiam. 
Hine, cum vellet ire Hierosolimam, dixit ei spiritus sanctus, ut reverteretur 
in Asiam ; et cum peragrasset superiores partes, Ephesum venit.” The hinc 
at the beginning of the second sentence, which is due to the misunderstand- 
ing explained above, is evidently an addition of Ado’s, just as the et inde, 
which often occurs. Ado naturally had also the stopping-place Trogyllium, 
xx. 15. 

9. (Pp. 15, 18.) On Acts xx. 3 see above in text and Harris, Four Lectures, 
49. On xx. 4f. see in part vol. i. 209, n.2. The uncorrupted text of a has 
been transmitted by NB, the Coptic version, the Vulgate (and substantially 
by the Sahidic version): ocuveimero d€ airé Samarpos ... Kal Tipddeos, 
*Aciavol O€ Tuyixds kal Tpddios. otro. de mpocdOdvres epevov huas ev 
Tpodd:. Inasmuch as ver. 3 pictures the moment in which Paul formed 
the resolution in Corinth to make the journey to Syria by way of Macedonia, 
instead of by the sea route, and since ovveimero, not ovveimovro, is the 
reading established for a, it is stated at first only regarding Sopater that 
he accompanied Paul from Corinth on this journey. This agrees with the 
fact that, as far as we know, Sopater was the only one of those mentioned, 
aside from Timothy, who was present with Paul at the time of his sojourn 
in Corinth (Rom. xvi. 21; vol. i. 209, 213, 417, n. 22). Timothy may have 
gone on ahead of Paul and Sopater from Corinth to Macedonia and even as 
far as Troas, and the rest, among whom were two persons of Thessalonica, 
Aristarchus and Secundus, would have joined him en route, possibly in 
Thessalonica, so that Gecoadovixéwr O€ is really in respect of them equivalent 
to saying “from Thessalonica onwards.” The narrator himself does not join 
the company until they reach Philippi. All the persons named were fellow- 
travellers of Paul’s, so that ovveimero could be placed at the beginning of the 
sentence, and be connected zeugmatically with all of them. Only in this 
way can the present writer understand the prominent position which is 
assigned to Sopater, and the explanatory phrase, oiro: dé «rd, designed to 


32 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prevent any misunderstanding. If this does not refer to all the persons 
named, besides Sopater, we cannot know which of these are to be dis- 
tinguished from others. The @ text ind and D is at all events mutilated 
in different ways, and in S? it is preserved in a not altogether unmixed 
condition. Instead of inserting, as Blass does, an unwarranted mponpyxovto, 
cuvelrovto a’ré might be inserted according to d (comitari [a mistake for 
comitatiJeum) and S*. The eye of the copyist of D wandered from avrod 
to duré. It reads therefore: péddovros ody eiévar aitod cuveirovto ai’té 
péxpe tis Acias Somarpos .. . kal Tidbeos, "Epéoror d€ Tuxexds kat Tpodipos, 
odrot mpoeNOdvres Cuevov airov ev Tpoad. This text also was not intended 
to be different from a. The insufferable Textus receptus was the first to 
conflate with the a text (AEHLP) the reading: dypx (or péxpr) tis ’Acias, 
which is genuine only in 8. As Luke wished to give the particulars of what 
had taken place in Asia, namely, in Troas and Miletus, he brought the 
journey of Paul and his companions (according to §) for the time being only 
“ag far as Asia,” without wishing to say that it came to an end there 
(cf. Rom. v. 14). Again, since he wished to cover rapidly the journey as 
far as Troas, he did not take pains to avoid the expression which makes it 
appear as if the whole company remained together from Corinth to Troas, 
although he has to add the remark that they arrived in Troas, at least in 
part, before Paul. One can understand that Luke found it advantageous 
in revising to smooth down these inequalities ; but not how one, who had 
a before him, might produce 8 from it. 

10. (P. 18.) Acts xx. 12 reads, according to D, domafopévav dé airav 
#yarev (not #yayor, as d has it) rév veavioxoy (dvta. This iyayev occurs in 
three minuscules and apparently also in the Armenian version, which has 
retained to a large extent traces of the oldest Syriac version ; cf. Robinson, 
Euthaliana, 76-92, according to which Paul leads the youth whom he has 
saved, and the latter does not let go his hand. In this case the greetings 
will apply not to Paul, or at least not to him alone, but especially to the 
“we” who departed before him. That these persons take leave before Paul 
does (mpoehOdvres according to a) is, however, also stated by B in os pédAXov 
avros meCevew, in spite of the xarehOdvres, which he uses in its place. Of 
the 6 text here only fragments are extant. Perhaps such are embedded in 
the Peshito, where, instead of odrws ¢&j\Oev in ver. 11, we read: “and then 
he went out, to travel by land,” and ver. 13: “But we went aboard the ship 
and sailed as far as the neighbourhood (?) of Thesos (for Assos), because we 
were to take Paul on board there, for so he had appointed when he set out 
by land.” 

11. (P. 18.) In respect of Acts xv. 1-5 the present writer cannot 
admit as text 8: (1) the addition after "Iovdaias, ver. 1, of rév memiorev- 
Kér@v aro THS aipévews TSv Dapicaiwy, and the omission of the corresponding 
words in ver. 5; for aside from the fact that no witness (DS? min. 8, 137) 
presents this text unmixed and complete, and that there exists no Latin 
witness for it (see also Iren. iii. 12. 14), it seems incredible that Luke should 
have taken this characteristic of the disturbers of the peace from its natural 
place in ver. 1 and placed it as an afterthought in ver. 5. (2) The un- 
wonted expression in a, ver. 1, repirunOjre TG eet 7S Maiicéws, as well as 
the comparison in ver. 5 or xxi. 21, caused in DS* and the Sahidic version 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 33 


the change kcal r@ é. M. wepirarjre. But this is not characteristic of 8. It 
is found verbatim, only with further additions, in Didasc, (syr. version), 
p- 102. 26, where in the main (on wy. 2, 5, 20, 29 see n. 12) not £, but ais 
presupposed. Moreover, the still further Aree form in Oonst. Ap. vi. 12, 
which is based upon Dzdasc., could not be introduced into the text by Blass 
in the face of his own hist witnesses. But the better accredited text of 
B also betrays itself as being an interpolation, in the singular rd @e which 
is retained from a, and which does not construe with mepumareiy. Cf. on the 
contrary vi. 14, xxi, 21. (3) The addition in ver. 2, ¢Aeyev, yap 6 THadXos 
peéveww (al. avrovs, al, éxaorov) ovrws Kabas éemiorevoay Sucxupi(opevos, has a 
much wider currency in 8 and in such witnesses as represent 8 largely in 
other respects also. Against its originality stand the facts: (a) that not a 
single earlier witness has the corresponding construction which Blass is 
obliged to create in order to use; (6) that the language is Paul’s as hardly 
anywhere else in the Acts (1 Cor. vii. 17, 20, 24, 40). On the other hand, 
it must be admitted that SucyvpiferOa occurs in the N.T. only in Luke 
xxii. 59; Acts xii. 15. (4) The following, ver. 2, of d€ é€AndvOdres amd 
‘Tepovoadnp mapnyyeAav avrois (av. D, rére S*) rG Tate kal BapydBa kal riot 
Dros dvaBaivey mpds .. . draws xpilGow ex’ adrdy, in B in itself might be 
genuine. In a also, only the newly arrived strangers could be the subject 
of éragay, since if it were otherwise another subject (perhaps the Church) 
would have had to be named. 8 would conform to the correct text in 
Gal. ii. 5 without ofs ovdé, and, ¢.g., the correct interpretation put forward by 
Jerome, according to which Paul’s journey to Jerusalem signifies a temporary 
yielding to the Jews. It is quite comprehensible also that Luke in a should 
have softened the harsh expression. But all is again made doubtful by the 
fact that the corresponding words in ver. 5, of d€ mapayyeiAavres adrois 
dvaBaivew mpos tos mpeoBurépous, are incompatible with the characterisa- 
tion of the people as Pharisees (see above, under 1), which is genuine there, 
and which is retained by D. 

12. (Pp. 19, 20.) Of the variants indicated above on p. 19 by A, B, C, A 
and B are to be found in D. (I.) For xv. 20 (where C could have no place) ; 
Tren. iii. 12. 14, now preserved also in Greek in a scholion (on xv. 20) of the 
Athos MS. (ed. von der Goltz, S. 41, see vol. i. 396, n. 3). According to the 
Bible text of this MS. (here without, but in xv. 29 and xxi. 25 with cal rod 
mvixrov) which, according to the statement of the copyist (S. 7f.), is said to 
agree with the text used by Origen as the basis of his commentary, it could 
appear as if Origen also had had both the defect A and the addition B. 
Since, however, Origen neither here nor in the scholion on xv. 29 (S. 48), 
as so often elsewhere, is expressly mentioned, he may not be adduced either 
for A or for B and C in any passage whatsoever. Since, furthermore, the 
critical marks, which point to the scholion on xv. 20, refer only to B, not 
to A, Porphyry also, whom the scholiast adduces with an appeal to Eusebius 
as advocate of the text of Irenzus, may be made responsible only for B. 
The scholiast on xv. 20, where he omits cal rov mv., and on xy. 29, where he 
has it, takes no notice whatever of A in the scholia on the two passages. 
Like Porphyry, also the Sahidic version and many Greek min. witness 
_ in xv. 20 only to B without A; on the contrary, Gigas witnesses to A 
_ without B in xv. 20, (II.) For xv. 29 we find A, B, and C united in 


VOL, Ill. 3 


34. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Irenzus (in Greek scholion in Goltz, S, 43; cf. S. 41) and D; only A and 
B in Cyprian, Test. iii. 119 (perhaps cited incompletely) ; only A and C in 
Tertullian, Pud. xii. (differing in the arrangement: a fornicationibus [d has 
this plural also, in stupris] et sanguine); only A in Ambrosiaster (see n. 5), 
Pacianus, and others, known to Jerome as the ordinary Latin text (Vall. 
vii. 478, ““‘ab idolothytis et sanguine et fornicatione’ sive, ut in nonnullis 
exemplaribus scriptum est, ‘et a suffocatis’”). The text of the Vulgate, 
which has no trace of A, B, C in xv. 20, xxi. 15, is uncertain. One can 
agree with the judgment of Wordsworth and White, who place suffocato 
without ef in brackets as a gloss, only in the sense that the MSS., which 
offer sanguine suffocato, go back to older MSS., in which the text of the 
Vulgate in this decisive passage (not, however, in xv. 20, xxi. 25) had been 
conformed to the Occidental tradition by striking out et suffocatis (or—to) 
found in the text, and that later copyists had again introduced into the text 
the fourth portion, which meanwhile had also in the Occident obtained the 
ascendency, in the form suffocato as attribute to sanguine. Jerome himself, 
who had taken notice of the variants, is to be credited neither with the 
inconsequence, of which he would have made himself guilty in his treatment 
of xv. 21 and xv. 29, nor with the adoption of a reading like sangwine 
suffocato, which, to say the least, is very erroneous. For this last reading 
one may not appeal to Cyril of Jerusalem, for, according to the MSS. (ed. 
Reischl and Rupp, i. 120, ii. 286), he cites (Catech. iv. 28, xvii. 29) cal mvtxrov 
in the second passage with the variant cal mvixrav. Only B, xv. 29, is found 
in S%, the Sahidic version, nine of the minuscules in Tischendorf, and the 
Latin Bibles pw, which Blass was the first to compare. In addition to these 
we are to take as evidence for B the letter of a Pelagian, circa 415 in Caspari, 
Briefe Abhandlungen, etc., 1890, S. 18, cap. 4; cf. p. 9 (see other material in 
GK, i. 367, A. 1, i. 589, A. 6), probably also Theop. ad Anfol. ii. 34, and 
the Latin Theophilus, i. 31, ii. 4; cf. Forsch. ii. 140f., and quite certainly 
Aristides, Apol. xv. 5; cf. Seeberg, Forsch. v. 218, 397. From many others 
which cite the passage thus or similarly, eg. Aphraates, ed. Wright, 498, 
Ephrem, Com. in epist. Pauli, pp. 9, 26, its likelihood is not to be established. 
It is very doubtful whether Marcion was acquainted at all with the passage 
(GK, ii. 462). Tertullian knew it (contra Mare. iv. 16, ed. Kroymann, 
p. 472), but, as Pud. xii. shows, not as an element of the Apostolic Decree. 
The oldest Christian writing in which it is found is the Didache; but in 
this the passage (i. 2) is widely separated from the place where it touches 
upon the Decree (vi. 3). So also in the Didascalia (Syr. p. 2. 8=Lat. ed. 
Hauler, 2. 12), while the Decree, according to the ordinary :text, does not 
follow until much later (Syr. 104. 23; Lat. 45. 1). (IIL) For xxi. 25 the 
defective reading A is to be found only in D and the Gigas. It cannot be 
concluded (so also again Wordsworth-White, ii. 139), from Tert. Aol. ix., 
that he had in this earlier writing, in distinction from the later, de Pud. xii., 
a text with cal muxrav. In Apol. ix. he cites no text at all, but mentions 

the Christian custom of abstaining from every use of the blood of animals, — 
in consequence of which they do not use the flesh of animals which have 
been strangled, or which have died (qui propterea suffocatis quoque et morticinis 
abstinemus). If this custom was so general in Africa also, as Tertullian here 
represents it to have been, this presupposes that the unmutilated Decree 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 35 


was known and operative there. As far as Tertullian himself is concerned, 
there exists between Apol. ix. and Pud. xii. only this difference: that in the 
former instance he assumes the interpretation of the ‘‘ blood” in the Decree 
as the blood of animals, to be the natural and only one; and merely draws 
the conclusion that it would be wholly impossible for the Christians to 
drink human blood; and that, on the contrary, in Pud. xii., without ex- 
cluding the other interpretation, he prefers to make the word refer to human 
blood and more particularly to the shedding of blood in murder (homicidiwm). 
Moreover, a more detailed treatment of the history and the original meaning 
of the Decree cannot be given in this place; cf., however, § 62,n.10. New 
literature on the subject: Bockenhoff, Das Apostol Speisegesetz, 1908, and the 
very venturesome writing of Gotthold Resch (son of A. Resch), Das 
Aposteldekret nach seiner ausserkanonischen Teatgestalt, 1905. 

13. (P. 20.) Tertullian, Pud. xii, translates eidwAodirey accurately by 
sacrificits, but interprets it as ddololatria. The Latin Bible in Cyprian has 
already the translation ab cdololatriis. What is to be understood by dayeiv 
eid@Adbura can be seen from 1 Cor. viii.-x. It refers merely to an indirect 
participation in idol worship, a dangerous approach to idolatry. The com- 
mand is devyere dd ris eldwdodarpeias, 1 Cor. x. 14, not riv eidwdodarpeiay 
as in 1 Cor. vi. 18, where the reference is to ropveia. Only for the purpose 
of sharpening the conscience is it said (Didache, vi. 3; cf. Col. iii. 5) that 
even the partaking of sacrificial meat, or participation in festivities and 
banquets whose background is one of idol worship, is in itself idolatry. 

14, (P. 20.) In the Didascalia, Syriac ed., p. 104. 23, the conclusion 
reads: “And ye shall abstain from necessary (things), from sacrifices, and 
from blood, and from things strangled, and from unchastity. And from 
these (things) guard your souls, and ye will (shall) do good (=ed mpdéere), 
and ye will be sound in health” (€ppwcOe). The reading mpdfare (CDHL, 
Didasc., Latin ed. bene agite) or mpd&nre (E) expresses the same conception ; 
but the future wpdéere might also, as in the Decalogue, be taken as an 
imperative, and bene (Irenzeus, Pacian) or recte (Tertullian) agetis was not 
intended to mean anything else. The ¢ppooGe is wanting in Irenzus and 
Tertullian, which is hardly accidental, inasmuch as Irenzus at least gives 
in other instances the writing in complete form. D, which contains it, must 
have here also a mixed text. Cf. also Clem. Al. Ped. ii. 56, without ¢ppacde, 
81: “be strong in the Lord.” 

15. (P. 21.) Didache, i. 2: wdvra dé daa av OedAnons pH yiverOa cot, Kat od 
dr pi mote, Cod. D xv. 20, where the Gentile Christians are spoken of 
in the third person; but kai dca pr Oédovew Eavrois yiverOa (written 
yeweobar), erépors pt) moveire (d faciatis, Irenzus faciant), and per contra xv. 
29, where the address would be possible because of what follows, D has 
Oédrere Eavrois ... movetv ; A, Irenzeus (Lat. text), Cyprian, vultis fier? vobis .. . 
faciatis or feceritis ; Iren. (Greek text) (v. d. Goltz, 8. 41), here as in xv. 20, 
cai doa dv py Gehoow aivrois yevéoOa, GrAas pr moeiv. The singular érépa, 
xy. 29 (D, d, Cyprian ; pseudo-Aug. Sermo 265, ed. Bass. xvi. 1367; the 
Pelagian letter [see n. 12] alii and nullo alii), which other Greek and Latin 
writers felt to be unsuitable alongside of €avrois, vobis, and moveire, is also an 
echo of the form aA in the Didache. 

16. (P. 22.) Blass in Luke i, 26 gives, instead of the definite statement 


36 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of time, év aire dé rH xaipa, only according to Latin witnesses. Why does 
he not, therefore, give the same formula in Acts v. 1 according to E, and in 
Acts iii. 1 according to D—év 8€ rais ijpepais ravrais ? The first formula is, 
however, a solemn introduction of the pericopes in the Greek as in the Latin 
lectionaries ; see, ¢.g., Scholz, N.T. ii. 455 ff.; Liber Comicus, ed. Morin, pp. 7, 
13, 15, etc. It is found also countless times in the Hv. Hiersol. in the half- 
Greek form xop (=xaipd) ann, in most cases standing outside the con- 
struction, and even where the statements of time contained and retained in 
the text itself make it superfluous (Matt. iv. 1, 17, xxiii. 1; John vii. 1, 
33, ed. Lagarde, p. 282. 1, 19, 302. 18, 370. 15, 371. 21), but also amalga- 
mated with the text, where it contains no determination of time (John viii. 
1, p. 372. 7; in pure Syriac, Matt. xv. 21, p. 292. 25, “at this time came 
Jesus”). In other passages, as Matt. iii. 1, p. 281. 10, 19, the formula arising 
out of the system of pericopes displaces that contained in the text. Acts 
iii. 1, v. 1 were the beginnings of Church pericopes (Scrivener, Jntrod.* i. 80 
and the marginal readings of Cod. 104 in Tischendorf on Acts iii. 1). 
Although the later Greek system had Luke i. 24-38 for Annunciation-day 
(Scrivener, p. 88 ; Hv. Hiersol, ed. Lagarde, pp. 278, 329), i. 26 is, however, 
the natural beginning. The fact that already Iren. iii. 10. 2, or, at least, his 
Latin translator, had in i. 26 the liturgical formula, may be of weight for the 
history of lectionaries, but cannot make the source of the reading doubtful. 
Cod. D, however, which does not here follow the Latins, stands in other 
passages under the influence of a pericope-system; cf. Scrivener, Introd. 
p. li. Blass (with D Ss) has not only placed the words 8a 76 efvas xrX., 
taken from Luke ii. 4, after ver. 5, but also by adopting avrovs for airdv has 
burdened Luke himself, in spite of Luke i. 36, with the fable of the Davidic 
descent of Mary, which arose in the second century. The only direct 
witness for this is the Lat. Palat. (ed. Tischendorf, p. 245, quod essent de domo, 
etc.). Since, however, this is the ordinary position of the sentences, accord- 
ing to which up to this point Mary has not been mentioned at all, essent is 
accordingly an evident mistake for esset. The Syrians, however, who read here 
“since both of them were of the house of David,” depend upon Tatian, who 
had allowed himself this insertion (Forsch. i. 88, 118, 265 ; cf. the apocryphal 
Ste Korintherbrief, ed. Vetter, S. 54, ver.4; @K,ii.561 ; in addition, Ephrem, 
Comm. in ep. Paul, p. 260 ; ThLb, 1893, S. 471; 1895, S. 19) ; also a Nether- 
land Harmony of the Middle Ages, which offers the same statement in Luke 
i. 27 (Academy, 1894, March 24). This interpolation brought about the trans- 
position of the sentences ; since it, however, can be considered an improve- 
ment of the style, and since it is to be found in D without the interpolation, 
Tatian may have found the transposition already present in his Luke. 
17. (P. 24.) It it beyond dispute, that in the genealogical scheme of 
uke iii. 23 ff., D has introduced the names from Matt. i. 10-16; cf. com- 
pilations such as are given in Cod. Fuld., ed. Ranke, p. 33. D has a large 
harmonising interpolation in Luke vy. 14, taken from Mark i. 45, a liturgical 
gloss at the beginning of a pericope, Luke xvi. 19, see Tischendorf, ad loc., 
and alsoon xvi.1. =D alone has after Luke vi. 4 the following: rj airj 
hpépa Ocardpevds tia épyaspevoy tH caBBdr@ ciwev arg “dvOpwre, et pev 
oldas, Ti mroveis, paxdpios ef, ef S€ pry oldas, emexardparos kal mapaBdrns «i Tod 
vouov.” This is followed, vi. 6, by the following recasting of the text: cat 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS a7 


eivehOovTos aitod madiv eis THY Guvaywy)y caBBdr@, ev 7 Hv avOpamos KN. 
On the other hand, ver. 5 does not follow until after ver. 10. That all of 
these changes are arbitrary, appears (1) from the fact that the disappearance 
from the whole tradition except D of the clever anecdote, at which no Gentile 
Christian could have taken offence, would otherwise be incomprehensible. 
(2) It should not be disputed that the teaching in ver. 5 is deduced neither 
from this anecdote nor from the following Sabbath story, vv. 6-10, but only 
from the incident related in vv. 1-4. This same closing sentence of the 
incident is found Matt. xii. 8; Mark ii. 28, and, according to all witnesses 
except D, also in Luke vi. 5. (8) The anecdote betrays by 76 caSBara, 
which is intolerable after r7 avr nyépa,—since, according to vi. 1, this day is 
a Sabbath,—that the second statement of time originally belonged to the 
anecdote ; the first statement, however, was added to help in fitting it into 
the present connection. (4) The awkward position, also, which ca8Bdr@ has 
been given by D in ver. 6, betrays the interpolator. Since two other long 
interpolations in D, namely, John vii. 53-viii. 11 and Mark xvi. 9-20 (these 
at least in substance, see vol. ii. 471 f., and below, § 69, n. 3) were taken from 
Papias, it is probable that this apocryphal Sabbath story was taken from the 
same source. It can, of course, be historically true: Jesus can have said, 
that he acts well who, like the priests in the temple (Matt. xii. 5, cf. John 
vii. 19-23), breaks the letter of the commandment concerning the Sabbath in 
the consciousness that he is fulfilling a higher duty. The obligatoriness of 
the law, when rightly understood, he did not by this saying dispute. 

18. (P. 24.) Whereas the additions discussed in n. 17 are peculiar to D, 
it shares with many Latin and partly also Syrian texts a large number of 
changes of words and inversions which are no more to be understood as 
actual improvements—perhaps from the author correcting his first edition— 
than as belonging to the original form from which the a text could have 
arisen. Examples: according to a, i. 63, all are astonished that the dumb 
Zacharias in spite of the general protest gives the child the same name, John, 
which Elisabeth had given it. It appeared much more astonishing that sud- 
denly he could speak again. Therefore @ transfers kali €Oavpacav mdvres to a 
position after €dv6n 7 yAdooa atrov. In B this is followed by “his mouth, 
however, was opened”; then first comes the statement, “ he spoke, praising 
God.” By what means, however, before he opened his mouth and spoke, 
could the people have known that his tongue was loosed? It was a necessary 
improvement of this laughable “improvement,” when Ss, and, in view of 
this one witness, Blass also, transposed the astonishment to a position after 
the speaking. But how, then, is the much stronger witnessed reading of 
D abg! to be explained? Concerning the commonplace change of xii. 38 
(which Marcion found in existence, but which D and most MSS. offer 
mixed with the genuine text), see GK, i. 682f., 1.476. In view of the fact 
that, as a rule, the mother herself is not able at once to attend to her new- 
born child, the Lat. Palat. (ce) has written in ii. 7 the plurals obvolverunt . . . 
collocaverunt. The noticeable brevity of the introductory formula in a, 
xxiii, 42 f., and the form of address with the bare "Ijaov, not found elsewhere 
in the N.T. (cf., however, Mark i. 24, x. 47; Luke viii. 28 [also here omitted 
from Dj], xvii. 13, xviii. 38 [omitted in AE, etc.]), must have stimulated 
copyists to corrections. But the great multiplicity of the variants, several of 


38 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which may he very early, is evidence against all of them. Especially the r@ 
émimdnocovre along with atré in D characterises itself by its very super- 
fluousness as a gloss to atr@. A preacher, who contrasted the two male- 
factors with each other, might have so designated the remorseful one in view 
of émirmav, ver. 40; and to a man of this kind all variants of D in this 
passage are to be credited, eg. edevors (also xxi. 7 D), @dpoe (also vill. 48 
inserted by others). The expression of Luke, in part peculiar but also varied 
in manifold ways according to the object and the sources used, incited to 
changes in order to make his Gospel agree partly with the other Gospels and 
partly with the common usage. In this respect D, and its satellites especially, 
have gone to great lengths. The inconsistency of 8 proves that the variants 
which have arisen in this way have not been brought about by a systematic 
working over either of 8 into a, or of a into 8, but by sporadic changes 
in B. The word wAnoOqva (the verb 13 times in Luke, 9 times in Acts, 
only 3 times elsewhere), used to designate the passing of a period of time, 
i. 23, 57, ii. 6, 21, 22 (with another meaning not found in N.T.), is retained 
3 times in D, however, ii. 6 reAcoO7jva (cf. Rev. xx. 3-5), il. 21 cvvredec Ojvar 
(cf. Luke iv. 2; Acts xxi. 27). D has replaced xadetv évopa, i. 13, 31, ii. 21 
(Matt. i. 21-25) only in ii. 21 by the preferable dvopagew dv (cf. Acts xix. 13; 
Eph. i. 21), and, on the other hand, has replaced the latter in vi. 13 by 
kaneiy, used more commonly in the choice of the apostles, and in vii. 14 by 
érovonatew, which is more suited in giving a person a surname. For 
émuordatns, Which, is used only by Luke, D has in v. 5 diddokane, vii. 24 
kupe, per contra in vill, 45 (one min. omits), ix. 33 (the min. 157, which 
otherwise agrees with D, and Marcion has d:ddcxane), ix. 49 (many d:ddoKane), 
and xvii. 13 has retained it. For jxos (only Luke iv. 37; Acts ii. 2, also 
katnxew, in the Gospels only Luke i. 4; Acts xviii. 25, xxi. 21, 24) D has 
iv. 37 axon, as Matt. and Mark everywhere, Luke never in this meaning. 
For aivos, xviii. 43 (cf. aivety 4 times in Luke, 3 times in Acts, only twice 
elsewhere in N.T.), D has the common dd£a; for dromov, xxii. 41 (elsewhere 
only Acts xxv. 5, xxvill. 6; entirely different 2 Thess. ili. 2), the trivial 
movnpov. 

19. (P. 24.) The present writer mentions as genuine texts which D and 
its satellites have preserved : (1) ill, 22: vids pov ef ov, yd onuepoy yeyév- 
vnka oe. So D and a large number of Latin witnesses. Augustine, who 
throughout his work, de Cons. Hvv., uses the Vulgate as the basis of his dis- 
cussion (Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala, 1896), mentions (ii. 19. 31) 
only the older Greek MSS., which have the common text. In the Latin 
Bible, 8 was at all events predominating and original. The fact that the 
Syriac versions do not have this form is explained by their dependence upon 
Tatian, who naturally could use only one form of the words spoken by the 
heavenly voice, for which, however, he did not choose Luke iii. 22, but 
Matt. iii. 17 (Forsch. i. 124). If it is established that the Gospel of the 
Ebionites (circa 170) is a compilation from the canonical Gospels, and has 
made especial use of Luke,—also in the account of the baptism (év ¢iSec),—it 
cannot be well doubted, that of the three heavenly voices which this Gospel 
contains, the first is taken from Mark i. 11, the second from Luke iii. 22 (in 
the form 8), and the third from Matt. iii. 17 (GK, ii. 726, 732 f.). It may 
further be considered as settled that Justin, Dzal, Ixxxviii. ciii., to whom 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 39 


this text was evidently embarrassing, had read it in Luke (GK, i. 541). 
According to the creed of the Church, Jesus, on account of His wonderful 
entrance into human life, was already looked upon as the Son of God ; 
further, as early as in Heb. i. 5, Ps. li. 7 was interpreted as referring to this 
event, and this seems better to suit Luke i. 32, 35. The variation from 
Matt. and Mark must have also appeared objectionable, and finally an 
extreme emphasis was laid upon the baptism of Jesus by many heretics. In 
view of all these facts, therefore, the 8 text must have become more and 
more intolerable to the consciousness of the Church, and at the same time to 
those who, like Justin, in addition to the wonderful generation of the man 
Jesus, taught also a pretemporal generation of the Logos. The rise and wide 
circulation of 8, on the basis of a, in the Church of the second century 
appears incomprehensible ; on the other hand, the gradual supplanting of B 
by a seems almost unavoidable. It is inconceivable that one and the same 
Luke in the two editions of his work should have changed from one to the 
other of the mutually exclusive traditions. There is, however, no evidence 
against the fact that 8 originated with Luke himself. If Ps. ii. 7 could have 
been connected with the resurrection in Acts xiii. 32-34, and in Heb. i. 5f. 
with the incarnation, so also could it have been connected with the baptism. 
Luke iii. 22 B is just as consistent with Luke i. 35 as Acts ii. 36 with Luke 
li. 11, iv. 18, Acts x. 36, 38, or as Rom. i. 4 with Rom. i. 3, viii. 3. God 
begat Jesus as His Son, since He was born ; and again in the figurative mean- 
ing of the Psalm passage made Him His Chosen Christ, since He furnished 
Him in the baptism with the spirit of His office (Luke xxiii. 35 ; John i. 34 
according to 8 Ss Scet al). (2) From fear that they might be utilised by the 
Marcionites, the words, ix. 54, “even as Elijah did,” and ver. 55, “ye know 
not what manner of spirit ye are of,” were struck out, the former by some 
(Sc, of the Latin MSS. e vg), the latter by others (AC), both by still others 
(NBL Ss). These facts prove that an antinomistic text produced by Marcion 
has not here found the most extensive circulation in the Catholic Church 
(D, most Latin MSS. S! 83, Chrysost. etc.), but that Marcion found this, and 
that Luke had written it (GK, ii. 468). (8) The history of the text of xxii. 
17-20 is very involved. I. The a text is found with some variants in 
NABCL, etc., and accordingly in Tischendorf as in the Text. receptus. 
II, The present writer considers as belonging to 6 the text of the two most 
important old Latin MSS. b e (k lacks this passage). In this text ver. 16 is 
immediately followed by ver. 19a, cai AaBay dprov-—ro oGpa pov, then comes 
vv. 17, 18 as in Tischendorf. There is lacking, therefore, vv. 19-20 (76 
iméep ipav Siddpevov—rd imép tyady éxxvvydpevov). How Marcion’s text is 
related to this text has not yet been determined with entire certainty. At 
all events he has nothing of vv. 16, 18, 19 (on this point GK, ii. 490, is not 
fully exact); further, he has the cup after the bread, .c. immediately after 
19a, and only one cyp. He agrees, therefore, in decisive points with 8 
against a. The sentence about the cup contains, however, the word S:aOjxn. 
It was accordingly formed, not as in 8=ver. 17 of a, but probably after 
1 Cor. xi. 25, as to a certain extent also ina, ver. 20. In another way Ss 
and Sc in this passage (concerning S1=Peshito at the present writing there 
is nothing certain to be said) show that 8 is their basis which they have 
interpolated in various ways from the parallels, At the same time one must 


40 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


consider that they are influenced by Tatian, who, as may easily be conceived, 
had in his harmony a mixed text from the different accounts of the Gospels, 
probably also from 1 Cor. xi. (Forsch. i. 204; GK, ii. 551ff.). That the 
Syriac versions have attempted many times to improve this passage is shown 
by the fact that yévynua is rendered by three different words in Sc Ss 8}. 
Se Ss agree with 8 in that they have the order vv. 16, 19, 17, 18, 21, and 
also only one cup. However, ver. 19 f. reads in these texts: “ And he took 
bread, and gave thanks over it, and brake it, and gave it to them, and said : 
This is My body, which (Ss+is given) for you ; this do in remembrance of 
Me. And (Ss+after they had eaten) He took a cup, and gave thanks over it, 
and said: Take this, divide it among yourselves (Ss+this is My blood of the 
new covenant). I say to you that from henceforth I will not drink of the 
fruit of the vine (Ss of this fruit) until the Kingdom of God comes” (ver. 21 
follows). It is evident to everyone that all that Ss has additional to Sc is 
interpolation ; no Syrian who had 1 Cor. xi. and the other Gospels, or the 
Diatessaron (cf. Aphraates, p. 221), in his Bible, could take offence at it. 
Therefore, if Sc offers the relatively or absolutely original Syriac text of the 
“separate” Gospels, then this differs from 8 only by the acceptance of ver. 
19d. This addition does not come, however, from a Greek text of Luke, but, 
since dvdduevoy is lacking, from 1 Cor. xi. 24. III. D and four old Latin 
MSS. have vv. 16-19a (as far as 76 c@pa pov) in the order of a, but without 
xv. 190-20. This text, which is here called y, can neither in itself nor in 
relation to II. be original. For (1) the ancient character of the Latin wit- 
nesses for 8 (b e) in comparison with the Latin witnesses for y (a ff? 11), as 
also the essential agreement of the former with the oldest Syriac text (see 
above), proves that 8 is the more original form in the Latin Bible, from which 
at a later time y developed. This change is explained if we presuppose on 
the part of the author of the y text a regard for the a text, which also in the 
Occident gradually gained the ascendency. This arrangement (of the account 
of the Supper) was adopted more easily, since thereby a seemingly suitable 
parallelismus membrorwm between vv. 15-16 and 17-18 would be secured. 
On the other hand, the wording of the old Occidental, and at the same time 
Syriac text 6 itself was retained even in details, such as the omission of the 
second kai, ver. 17. (2) Consequently y cannot be original, since in this text 
the one cup, which 8 and y have, is placed before the bread. This, however, 
contradicts all tradition, both of the N.T. (1 Cor. xi. 24f., cf.x.3f.; Matt. xxvi. 
26f.; Mark xiv. 22f.; also Marcion and Tatian, GK, ii. 490, 509; Forsch. i. 
204) and of the liturgical usage. Against this one cannot adduce as evidence 
to the contrary the mention of the cup before the bread, 1 Cor. x. 16f., or 
even before the table, z.e. before the entire meal, ver. 21 ; for it is incon- 
ceivable that Paul should contradict himself in so brief a passage. The 
Didache also recognises the order, food and drink (Didache, x. 3, cf. 1 Cor. 
x. 3f.), while the prayers (Didache, ix. 2f.) at first over the cup, then over 
the bread, do not belong to the Eucharist in the narrower meaning, but to 
the introductory Agape (forsch. iii. 293 ff.). There remains accordingly only 
the question whether a or 8 was written by Luke. For @ there are decisive : 
(1) the age of its attestation, (2) that the origin of 8 from a is just as easily 
understood as the origin of a from £ is inconceivable. No Christian of 
earlier or. later times could take offence at the words in vv. 19d, 20, known 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 41 


in part from Matt. and Mark and in part from 1 Cor. xi. On the other 
hand, everyone must take offence at the fact that the cup of Luke is not 
likened to the blood, and was not in any way characterised in its sacramental 
significance. Inasmuch as the Gospel of Luke in earlier times was held to 
be the Gospel of Paul (vol. ii. 385, n. 7), nothing was more natural than to 
add to his meagre text from 1 Cor. xi. Since, however, according to a very 
effective Canon of the text criticism of the early Church, anything that had 
been handed down in the tradition, and was suited to the taste of the Church, 
might not be relinquished (cf. Eusebius in Mai, Nova p. bibl. iv. 1. 255), the 
original account of the cup, in no way characterised as a sacrament, was 
transferred to a position before the account of the institution of the sacra- 
ment, 2.e. immediately following ver. 16, after it had been displaced by an 
interpolation from its original position. Along with the eating of the pass- 
over, ver. 15 f., stood now as seemingly suitable a drinking of the cup, which 
belonged just as little as the former to the sacrament, but as well as that 
constituted an act preparatory to the institution of the sacrament. (8) That 
a grew out of f in such an artificial way, is betrayed also by the fact that 76 
tmép tpav éxxuvvdpevoy, ver. 20, does not in its content suit rd mornpiov nor 
in its wording r@ aiware as apposition. Neither a solecism so bad, and in no 
way necessary, is to be credited to a Luke, nor the impossible thought that 
the cup which Jesus hands to the disciples was poured out or shed in their 
behalf. The genuineness of 8 appears from all these facts to the present 
writer to be without doubt. The peculiarity of the account of Luke, which, 
to be sure, is noticeable, is due to the purpose of this Gospel, cf. § 60. The 
present writer must content himself with these examples out of the textual 
history of Luke’s Gospel, and add only the assertion, that also in other 
important passages it must first be determined what is the original of the 
group of Western and Eastern witnesses, designated by 8, before one can 
decide anything as to what is the original. The present writer is of the 
opinion that D has preserved also xxii. 43f., xxiv. 51, which were written 
Luke ; on the other hand, the false additions, xxiii. 38, 53; omissions, xxiii. 
34; false changes, xi. 53 f. 


§ 60. PREFACE, PLAN, AND PURPOSE OF LUKES 
HISTORICAL WORK. 


Unlike Matthew and Mark, the third Gospel has no 
title given to it by the author, in which respect it 
resembles the Fourth Gospel and Acts. Nor is° there 
evidence to show that Luke, whom we may assume to 
be the author, ever provided either of his two books with 
a common title, or each of them with individual titles, 
which were subsequently lost (n. 1). In fact, such a title 
was quite unnecessary, if Luke did not design his work for 
circulation among the reading public through the ordinary 


42 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


channels, and if he did not intend it to be read in the 
services of the Church, as John did Revelation, but wrote 
it primarily for the use of an individual. That this was 
the case is proved by the dedication prefixed to the work. 
In this Luke is the only one of the historical authors of 
the N.T. to follow a custom much in vogue among the 
Greek and Roman writers of that time. Although in. 
classic usage the dedication frequently was only a polite 
expression of personal regard or of servile appeal, having 
no intimate connection with the contents and purpose of 
the writing, there are numerous cases where the address 
shows that the writer dedicated his work to a friend and. 
patron because he had suggested its composition, or because, 
from his interest in the subject of the work or in the person 
of the author, the latter hoped to secure a wider circula- 
tion of his work, or because such a person seemed to him 
appropriately to represent the class of readers whom he 
desired his book to reach (n. 2). 

In general, this characterises the dedication of Luke’s 
work to Theophilus, as is clear from the specific statement 
of the author's purpose with which the dedication con- 
cludes. The address, xpdticte Ocdgure, not only shows that 
Theophilus was a man of high position (n. 3), but also 
proves that, at the time, he was not a member of the 
Christian Church; since there is no instance in the 
Christian literature of the first two centuries where a 
Christian uses a secular title in addressing another 
Christian, to say nothing of a title of this character, 
which may be said to correspond in a general way to 
“Your Excellency” (n. 3). Theophilus is a Gentile 
interested in Christianity. The word xatny7Ons cannot 
be interpreted to mean that he was a “‘catechumen” in 
the technical sense, z.e. a person under instruction by the 
Church preparatory to baptism. For, in the first place, 
we do not find this technical meaning of xarnyeiv, 
karnxetoOas in use until a later time, and, in particular, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 43 


it is not to be found in this sense elsewhere in Luke’s 
writings. In the second place, the use of the aorist 
would indicate that Theophilus had previously received 
this instruction, and had been already baptized. This, 
however, is not only out of harmony with the title by 
which Luke addresses him, as already indicated, but even 
more so with the statement of the result which Luke 
hoped to accomplish in the case of Theophilus by his 
historical account. The work is designed to give 
Theophilus his first real knowledge, fundamental insight, 
and conviction regarding the “trustworthiness of the 


_ words concerning which he had heard” (ver. 4, n. 4). 


Assuming as self-evident that the Adyor, about the trust- 
worthiness of which the author is here speaking, were 
words, discourses, or teachings relating to the tpdyyata 
which Luke was about to set forth in their historical 
order, it is perfectly clear that one who had been instructed 
by the Church and baptized into its membership would not 
need to be convinced of the trustworthiness of these Aoyor. 
Moreover, from Luke’s language it is certain that the 
information which Theophilus had received about the facts 
of Christianity and the Christian doctrines based upon 
these facts, had not afforded a certainty which satisfied his 
critical understanding (n. 4). On the other hand, the fact 
that Luke’s book is dedicated to him, and the tone of the 
dedication, prove that it was not mere curiosity that led 
Theophilus to enter into relation with the Christians and 
with Luke, but that he was favourably inclined toward 
the Christian faith, only all his doubts had not yet been 
overcome. The fact that Luke dedicated a second book to 
him may be taken as proof that the first had met a kindly 
reception, while from the absence of the polite form of 
address in Acts i. 1 we are possibly to conclude that in the 
meantime he had ceased to be the man of distinction, and 
had become a brother. One of the Greek preachers (above, 
p. 6, n. 5) fittingly compares Theophilus with the pro- 


44 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


consul Sergius Paulus (Acts xiii. 6-12). In view of his 
social position, it is very natural to suppose that Luke may 
have written for him primarily, as he says (col ypdypav). 
But Theophilus’ position was also a guarantee that when 
the work had accomplished its immediate end it would find 
a wider circulation. 

If such was Luke’s purpose, it follows at once that 
vv. 1-2 are not designed to give the reasons which led 
him to the decision to write this work. In the first place, 
the contents of vv. 1-2 are not at all suited to express 
such a purpose (n. 5). Moreover, it is self-evident that 
the only adequate and generally intelligent reason for 
literary work of any sort is always and only the purpose 
which the author believes can be accomplished in this way, 
and only in this way. Therefore, vv. 1-2 must have been 
written solely in order to justify Luke’s undertaking by 
citing the case of others who had undertaken similar work 
before him, whose historical position gave them no more 
right to do so than he possessed, and whose information 
was no greater than hisown. The structure of the sentence 
(émeudxjmep ToAXol erexelpnoay . . . eof xauol) shows at once 
that Luke places himself on quite the same level with these 
earlier writers, in order to show that his undertaking is not 
unheard of or presumptuous. If, as Origen thought (n. 6), 
criticism of his predecessors were implied in ézeyeipneav, 
then he chose the means least adapted to accomplish this 
end. Writing of this kind is here simply described as a 
difficult task, both in the case of the “many” and in his 
own case. It is possible that he means at the same time 
that one or another of the many, or all of them, had failed 
to accomplish their purpose. Nevertheless, the “I also” 
(ver. 3) shows that all which he says of his predecessors is 
equally applicable to himself. On the other hand, all that 
he says of his own work, in vy. 3-4, except édofe xdpot 
ypaat, namely, the dedication to Theophilus, what he 
hoped to accomplish with him, the preparatory investiga- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 45 


tions which he made, and the method of his exposition, 
refers exclusively to Luke. Since all these are things not 
touched upon in the characterisation of the older writers 
and their work, we may assume that Luke means to imply 
that these features of his own work are not to be found in 
these earlier writers. While it is not expressly stated what 
it was that was lacking in the earlier writings, the fact 
that Luke does not recommend to Theophilus any one of 
them, proves that no one of them was adapted to Luke’s 
particular purpose. 

“Many,” says Luke, “have taken in hand to draw up 
a narrative concerning those matters which have been 
fulfilled among us.” In contrast to Theophilus, who is 
still outside the Church, Luke here, as in ver. 2, associates 
himself not only with the earlier writers, but also with the 
entire group of those occupying the same position and 
seeking the same ends, to which both he and these writers 
belonged. This is the Christian Church, and, in particular, 
the Christian Church of Luke’s own time as distinguished 
from the eye-witnesses of the gospel history (ver. 2; ef. 
John i. 14), many of whom were perhaps no longer living. 
Taking wAnpogopetv in the only sense in which it occurs 
with an impersonal object (n. 6), it may mean either that 
the things in question have been accomplished, 7.e. reached 
their consummation, in the Christian Church of Luke’s 
time, or 7a év jwiv mpdypata,—instead of which ra Kad’ jpas, 
or Ta wap mpiv, Or Ta HuéTepa mpdyuata could have been 
used equally well,—may be used to distinguish the facts in 
question from all other historical facts, and the facts thus 
carefully limited would then be said to have been to a 
certain extent accomplished in the writer’s lifetime. The 
latter interpretation is favoured not only by the position 
of év jpiv after memAnpopopnuévev, but also by the fact that, 
according to the other construction, the indication of the 
subject of the proposed historical work would be very 
obscurely designated. Accordingly, the sentence may be 


46 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


taken to mean that many have undertaken to set forth 
the distinctively Christian facts, in other words the history 
of Christianity, and that Luke intends to make a similar 
attempt, since mpdyyara is certainly to be supplied as the 
object of wapéSocay in ver. 2, and of wapyxodovOnxote Tacw 
and ypayas, ver. 8. 

The norm by which the earlier writers and Luke also 
were guided, and, consequently, the principal source upon 
which they depended, was the reports of those who from 
the beginning had been eye-witnesses (of these mpayyara), 
and ministers of the word (n. 7). It follows at once that 
the writers with whom Luke here compares himself were 
not abromrar kal brnpérar Tov Noyou from the beginning, but 
became such later. Such a contrast as this, which is left 
unexpressed elsewhere also (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14; John 
i, 14; 1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. 1. 16), is necessary in order to 
explain the a7’ apxijs, since the trustworthiness of a witness 
and the value of his testimony is by no means conditioned 
upon his having had a personal connection with the details 
of the history from the beginning: The centurion at the 
cross, amember of the Sanhedrin like Nicodemus, Lazarus 
in Bethany, a travelling companion of Paul’s, were the 
really classic witnesses for the portions of the history in 
which they took part. But those from whom the tradition 
was received, the persons to whom the Christian Church 
owed its knowledge of the facts of Christian history and 
the faith which was based upon these facts, were of a 
different class. Although no one of them could have 
experienced every detail which Luke designs to set forth, 
taken together they may be considered witnesses of the 
whole series of events in question, and recipients of a call 
which made it their duty to communicate their knowledge 
of these facts to others. 

As to the second phrase, the ministry of the word, 
an’ dpyjs clearly means “from the beginning of the 
Christian preaching after the resurrection of Jesus,” and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 47 


possibly Acts i. 22, x. 37, John xv. 37, cf. vi. 64, xvi. 4, 
indicate that this is the meaning of the same phrase in 
relation to the eye-witnesses. It is to be observed, in the 
first place, that Luke has chosen an expression to describe 
the call of the original witnesses which cannot be limited 
to the apostles, but which, leaving the am’ dpyjs out of 
account, includes all who had taken part in the Svaxovia 
tov droyou (Acts vi. 4, xill. 5, xx. 24, xxvi. 16; 1Cor. iii. 5, 
Meteo a7, 203 1 Tima 12, -v. 17 52 Dim. tia 
iv. 2, 5). Even if this circle is limited by the am dpyjs 
to those who had been engaged in this work ever since the 
first years of the gospel preaching, if not from the Day of 
Pentecost, it is not confined to the apostles, but includes 
persons like Philip (Acts vii. 4 ff.), the brothers of Jesus 
(Acts i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5, xv. 7), and other dpyaios padnrat 
(Acts xxi. 16). In the second place, this is true also of 
the am’ dpyijs abromrat, Even where the latter expression 
is limited to the apostles, it is not possible to make it refer . 
with equal literalness to the same point of time for all ; 
since Matthew, for example, became a companion of Jesus 
much later than did Peter and John. Moreover, since 
the apostles were chosen still later, on this assumption 
important parts of the gospel history would be excluded 
from the realm covered by the testimony of eye-witnesses. 
Of all the gospel writers, Luke in particular could not 
have regarded either the choosing of the apostles or the 
baptism of John as the beginning of Christian history, 
from which point of time the Church had received an 
account based upon the testimony of eye-witnesses ; for 
both in i. 3 and in the carrying out of his plan he places 
the beginning of the history which he is about to set forth 
at a point very far back. Account must be taken also of © 
the contents of Luke i. 5-11. 52. What was the length of 
Mary’s life, who is not mentioned in the N.T. after the 
events recorded in Acts i. 14, and who is not referred to 
at all outside the historical books, except in Gal. iv. 4, and 


48 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


here not by name, we do not know. ‘The brothers of 
Jesus also were ‘‘ministers of the word,” and the fact 
that they retained a critical attitude towards Jesus until 
the last makes them none the less eye-witnesses of the 
history of His early life (vol. 1. 104 f.). 

Reverting now to the question as to the way in which 
this entire circle of the original witnesses of the history of 
Christianity transmitted the facts to the growing Church 
(rapéSocav juiv), we infer, more from the context of the 
prologue than from the language used in it (n. 8), that 
it must have been by oral narratives. For, in the first 
place, it was the chief business of the ‘‘ ministers of the 
word” not to write books, but to proclaim the unwritten 
gospel (§ 48). In the second place, wapéSocay jyiv can 
refer to the composition of one or more Gospels only 
in case all the eye-witnesses and the ministers of the 
word edited a single Gospel together, or each one of 
them prepared a separate Gospel. But both suppositions 
are equally absurd. The only thing in which all of these 
witnesses could have had part was the oral transmission of 
the facts, and that in a great variety of ways. In the 
third place, the work of the writers with whom Luke 
classifies himself could not be called an édvardfacOar 
Siunynow if they had possessed the facts, which they 
designed to set forth before them, in several writings 
prepared by the original witnesses, ae. in the form of 
written narrative (Suyjoes); for such narratives must 
have had some plan, and the work of these writers would 
necessarily have consisted in some sort of a rearrangement 
of the plan and exposition of the material found in these 
books. The expression in ver. 1 means that Luke’s 
numerous predecessors collected and themselves arranged 
for the first time into a connected and continuous narra- 
tive, facts which up to that time had been testified to and 
narated in detail only as occasion demanded. In the 
fourth place, if, in ver. 2, Luke was thinking of written 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 49 


records of the original witnesses, it would not have been 
sufficient justification of his undertaking to call attention 
to the example of many before him who, without being 
eye-witnesses, had undertaken work similar to his own. 
On the contrary, it would have been necessary for him to 
show that the writings of the original witnesses did not 
render superfluous those of others writing in the second 
generation and dependent upon the original witnesses, 
and to indicate how this was so. The presupposition 
which lies behind this entire justification of his under- 
taking seems to be that the original witnesses of the 
history of Christianity were the ones originally called 
to be its historians, but that they did not undertake this 
task; so that now it was necessary for others, who were 
apparently much less suited to its accomplishment, to 
venture upon this work. It is clear, therefore, that Luke 
knew nothing of a Gospel written by one of the apostles 
and personal disciples of Jesus. 

With regard to the numerous gospel writings, how- 
ever, of which he did have some knowledge, there is at 
least. one with which we have already become acquainted 
that exactly suits his description, namely, the Gospel of 
Mark. This was written by a man who was not among 
the original eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, but 
who became both in the later course of the history of 
Christianity. He was dependent, consequently, upon the 
testimony of these original witnesses, especially upon that 
of Peter, for the most important part of the gospel history. 
Their narratives were the norm to which Mark conformed, 
and, at the same time, the principal source from which he 
drew. We say principal source, because Luke does not 
say more of his predecessors—if we have correctly inter- 
preted him to mean that the “many” actually became 
eye-witnesses during the course of the history which it was 
their task to set forth, so that they were not dependent 
upon the tradition of those who were eye-witnesses from 

VOL, Il, 4 


s0 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the beginning for everything they wrote. The reference 
of Luke’s description to the Gospel of Mark is not ex- 
cluded by the fact that Mark is dependent in many places 
upon the Aramaic Matthew, since Luke did not necessarily 
know that this relation existed. Moreover, an Aramaic 
book, so long as it remained untranslated into Greek, was 
outside of the range of the knowledge of a Greek like 
Luke, even if he had heard of its existence; while it was 
entirely outside Theophilus’ range of vision. Nor can 
the applicability of the description to Mark be denied, 
because the subjects with which these histories deal are 
described as memAnpodopnuéva. For, in the first place, 
Luke could speak of them from the point of view of his 
own time without implying that they were known to his 
predecessors in the same completed form in which they 
were known to him. In the second place, Luke does not 
say that his predecessors set forth the entire history of 
Christianity, but that they undertook to construct a 
narrative dealing with it. When we recall, on the one 
hand, that Mark’s work was never completed, and, on the 
other hand, that it was probably designed to reach down 
to and include the history of the apostolic preaching (vol. 
i. 479), it would seem that Mark was just the kind of a 
work that Luke had in mind when he wrote the description 
in 1. 1-2. 

Inasmuch as a Mark and many others, whose names 
we do not know, had undertaken to write concerning the 
history of Christianity, Luke also, overcoming the doubts 
betrayed in his preface, decided on the basis of careful 
investigation, which went back to the beginning, to set 
forth for Theophilus’ benefit in order and in writing all 
the facts in question, having in view the purpose which 
has already been discussed (n. 9). The language Luke 
uses does not give the impression that he made the 
investigations upon which his narrative is based after 
his decision to write, nor that these investigations were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 51 


carried on as the plan was developed. It would seem 
rather that, for other reasons, and because of his own 
interest in the facts, he had already investigated all the 
facts in question carefully from the beginning, and that 
now he had decided to set them forth because of the 
opportunity to do Theophilus a service which the latter 
had probably requested. Inasmuch as Luke implies at 
the outset in ver. 2 that he, like the other gospel writers; 
did not belong to the company of those who had been 
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the be- 
ginning, but was able to give an account of the earlier 
events only from the oral traditions of those who were 
such, it follows that his investigations must have been 
inquiries into these oral traditions, and that these inquiries 
were made of persons who handed these traditions down. 
This does not necessarily imply that it was possible for 
Luke to inquire of the original witnesses themselves 
concerning all the details, for it will be observed that the 
“we,” which is used twice at the beginning (vv. 1, 2), 
identifies Luke not only with the writers with whom he 
compares himself, but likewise with the Christian Church, 
which owed to these original witnesses the knowledge of 
its origin and early history. It is possible, therefore, that 
Luke received the tradition from the original witnesses 
indirectly. If, however, the investigations to which Luke 
refers were as comprehensive and as careful as he assures 
us they were, he must have made every effort to secure 
the testimony of the most trustworthy and oldest pos- 


_ sessors of the tradition in proportion as he was able to 


consult such persons. If the author was a member of the 
Church in Antioch as early as the year 40 (above, p. 2), 
and if he is identical with the narrator in the “we” 
sections of Acts, and with the Luke of the Pauline 
letters, he had abundant opportunity to secure informa- 
tion directly from prominent first-hand witnesses of the 
Christian tradition. Although he does not say in so many 


GEORGE MARK ELLIOTT LIBRARY 
| The Cincinnati Bible Seminary 
od | Bourn 3 


s2 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


words that he made use of the writings of his predecessors, 
he does not deny it. So far as the Gospel is concerned, 
the xabes rapédocav juiv means that he made the testimony 
of these original witnesses alone his authority in matters 
pertaining to the history of the Christian tradition. But 
this does not preclude the possibility of his having ap- 
preciated and used the work of earlier writers, who used 
practically the same sources as himself, but who in special 
points drew from sources no longer at Luke’s command, or 
which had never been accessible to him. A man of the 
literary training which the style of the dedication shows 
the author to have possessed, could not have been in- 
different to writings, known to him, which dealt with 
the same topics as his own (cf. § 61), even if his own 
investigations among the sources of the oral tradition, 
the particular purpose for which he wrote, and the corre- 
sponding arrangement of his book made him independent 
of his predecessors. 

Since his preparatory studies took him back to the 
beginning of the history which he was to set forth (dve@ev), 
this was also the natural point at which to begin his 
account. Comparison of Luke i. 5-iv. 15 with Mark 
i. 1-15 will show what is meant. This was one of the 
means by which a man like Theophilus might be im- 
pressed with the trustworthiness of the history of 
Christianity. A further means is suggested by Kxabef js. 
For inasmuch as the facts in question were historical, 
it is self-evident that the order in which they were to be 
set forth must in a general way correspond to the order 
in which they took place. But we do not know definitely 
how far Luke, notwithstanding the carefulness of his 
investigations, was in a position to give the exact 
chronology. Moreover, by the use of this expression — 
he does not mean to say that chronological accuracy is 
the main point in his narrative, but that he intends to 
give a logically connected historical account in which 


Se 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACT'S 53 


what precedes prepares for and explains what follows, 
in contrast to the disconnected narratives to which 
Theophilus had been heretofore accustomed. 

There remains to be discussed the question as to how 
much ground Luke intended his account to cover—in 
other words, to what work and to what sort of a work 
the dedication refers. The fact that the Gospel of Luke 
was early united with the other Gospels, which were 
generally considered a unit even after the codex form of 
manuscript came into use (GK, i. 61 ff), with the con- 
sequent separation of Luke from Acts, is not sufficient 
reason for denying, as is frequently done, that these two 
books belonged together, being parts of one work, and 
that both are covered by the prologue (n. 10). The 
prologue itself shows that the work which it introduces 
is not to be limited to the Gospel. If Luke meant the 
prologue to cover only the history of Jesus up to the time 
of His ascension, the statement of the theme, namely, ra 
memdnpobopnuéva év huiv mpdyuara, is inexplicable. Why 
did not Luke use some such expression as that in Actsi. 1, 
or such an expression as John used in his testimony re- 
garding Mark (vol. ii. 453, n. 14), or ra wept rod “Inood 
so frequently employed by himself (vol. ii. 377, n. 2), 
which would serve as a general description of writings 
covering the gospel history and likewise of his own? If 
he had a general conception of the history of Christianity, 
and if he thought of this history as reaching a definite 
consummation in his own time, he must have intended in 
the nature of the case to set it forth in its completeness. 
Just as he planned to begin at the very beginning (dve6er), 
so he must have purposed to carry the narrative down to 
its conclusion. This historical period was, however, by 
no means concluded with the promise of the Spirit and 
the command to convert all peoples (Luke xxiv. 44-49); 
and even if a Christian had regarded these events as the 
practical conclusion of the 7a év jmiv mpdyyara, there is no 


54 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


conceivable reason why it should be expressly stated that 
they were completed, when no more was meant than that 
they had happened. Furthermore, we found it suggested 
in ver. 2 that Luke, like some of his predecessors, e.g. 
Mark, became an eye-witness and a minister of the word 
during the course of events which he was attempting to 
set forth. Since, however, both according to his own 
testimony and that of the tradition, he was not one of the 
personal disciples of Jesus, he must have included among 
the events to be set forth those that took place in the 
apostolic age, in which other eye-witnesses and ministers 
of the word were added to those who had been such from 
the beginning. We should expect also that in the course 
of the work the writer would at least indicate the point 
where he passes to the account of events in which he 
himself took part. 

If the third Gospel were all we had from Luke’s hand, 
we should certainly infer from the prologue that only the . 
first part of his work is preserved to us. But we have 
also Acts, which is ascribed to Luke quite as unanimously 
as is the Gospel. Acts is likewise dedicated to Theophilus, 
and is, moreover, represented to be the second part of a 
larger work, the first part of which set forth the deeds 
and teachings of Jesus. And as if this were not sufficient 
to establish the connection between the two, the deeds 
and teachings of Jesus set forth in the first book are 
declared to be the beginning of a work continued after 
His departure (Acts i. 1; n. 10). This is the authenticated 
interpretation of the remAnpodopnudvor in Luke i. 1. If 
all that Jesus did and taught before His ascension was a 
beginning which required to be continued and completed, 
the Gospel was not planned without reference to Acts, 
and the two together constitute a single work, the intro- 
duction to which is Luke i. 1-4. So in Acts we find 
confirmation of the preliminary reference in dm’ dpyis. 


, 


The “we” of Acts xi, 27 f (above, p. 4, n. 3), xvi, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 55 


10-17, xx. 5 (or xx. 6)-xxi, 18, xxvii. 1—xxviil. 16 
corresponds to the “I” of the prologue and of Acts i. 1. 
The author permits us to recognise him as an eye-witness 
of events which he describes in his history. At the 
beginning of each book, where, as the author, he contrasts 
himself to Theophilus, he unconsciously uses “I.” Where 
he appears as an actor in the narrative he does not use 
this designation, nor does he employ his name, which 
possibly could have been taken to refer to some person 
other than the author, but uses “we,” thus choosing the 
middle course between the two tendencies of ancient 
historians in setting forth events in which the narrator 
had part. These manifested themselves, on the one hand, 
in the effort to secure objectivity in the narrative, which 
seemed to be sacrificed when the personality of the author 
was introduced; and, on the other hand, in the desire to 
make it clear that the things recorded were not mere 
hearsay, but based on the author’s own experience (n. 11). 
According to xi. 27f., the author was not one of the 
prophets who came from Jerusalem to Antioch in the 
year 40 (see Part XI.), but was a member of the Church 
in Antioch ; and, since he clearly was not a Jew, he must 
have been one of the Hellenists converted before Paul’s 
or even Barnabas’ arrival in Antioch, through the influence 
of persons from Cyprus and Cyrene who had fled 
originally from Jerusalem (Acts xi. 20f.). Since the 
narrative preceding Acts xvi. 10, where the “we” is 
introduced for the second time, is of a very summary 
character, it is impossible to determine exactly the 
moment when Luke joined Paul. He is the fourth 
member of Paul’s party when, with Silas and Timothy, 
the latter reached Troas on the second missionary journey, 
and he was with them during the journey to Macedonia, 
and during their stay in Philippi (n. 12). Inasmuch as 
the “we” does not appear again until the passage in 
which Paul is represented as setting out on a journey 


56 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


from Philippi, about the time of the Passover in the year 
58 (xx. 5; n. 18), it appears that Luke was in Philippi 
during the five or six years intervening, after which he 
accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (xx. 7, 13-15, xxi. 1-18). 
According to the prologue, his interest in the tradition 
was not entirely new when this was written; and if he 
began to feel this interest as early as this journey to 
Jerusalem, he could not have failed to make use of the 
opportunity to satisfy it which was afforded him by 
intercourse with early disciples (Acts xxi. 16), with James 
(xxi. 18), and with others who had been eye-witnesses 
from the beginning. Since he accompanied Paul on his 
journey to Rome in the autumn of the year 60 (xxvii. 1- 
XXvill. 16), it is probable that he remained in Palestine, 
in the vicinity of Ceesarea, during the whole of the two 
years and a quarter during which Paul was compelled to 
remain in that city. If Luke is the author, we have 
information concerning him for a considerable time longer. 
He was with Paul during both the first and second 
Roman imprisonments (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 
iv. 11). He seems to have remained in Rome from his 
arrival in the spring of the year 61 until after the year 
66. 

The statement of the prologue about the ministry of 
the word likewise receives confirmation in the N.T. Not 
only does Paul call Luke one of his fellow-workers 
(Philem. 24), but the author of Acts describes himself 
in xvi. 10, 18, 17 as being engaged with Paul, Silas, 
and Timothy in preaching the gospel in Philippi. If he 
remained here for a number of years (see above), it is not 
unlikely that he performed the work of an evangelist in 
addition to his regular medical calling, and it is possible 
that the ancient tradition which makes Luke the brother 
referred to in 2 Cor. viii. 18 may have a basis in fact 
(above, p. 6, n. 6). 

If from what has been said it follows that Acts is an 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 57 


integral part of the historical work introduced by Luke 
i. 1-4, this does not in any sense imply that the work 
which Luke planned to write reached its intended con- 
clusion with Acts xxviii. 31. It is certainly a significant 
point in the history of Christianity which is reached at 
the close of the second book. After having overcome 
difficulties which seemed to multiply themselves, Paul 
has at last reached Rome, which for so many years has 
been the longed-for goal of his plans (Acts xix. 21, 
Peele xxv. lls 21.095 -axvil 24. xxviii: [42 iee 
ef. Rom. i. 10-15, xv. 22-29), and although under arrest 
the apostle is able to preach the gospel without hindrance 
in the capital of the empire. But nota single detail of 
his preaching during these two years is recorded; much 
less is said about it even than about his three weeks’ 
preaching in Thessalonica, xvii. 1-9. The reader, whose 
attention has been kept fixed upon this goal since xix. 21, 
is bitterly disappointed, not only because of the meagre- . 
ness of the sketch in Acts xxviil. 30f., but particularly 
because nothing is said about the outcome of Paul’s trial, 
which has been in view ever since xxv. 10f., xxvii. 24. 
A more awkward conclusion of the work could scarcely 
be imagined. This is not explained by the assumption, 
which was made in early times, but is incapable of being 
proved, that Luke wrote or concluded his book im- 
mediately after the close of the two years (above, p. 7 f., 
n. 7). The fact that he writes Sverfay Srnv proves that 
he knew what event brought to an end the condition 
described, which had lasted for two years. Furthermore, 
the fact that he uses the imperfect tense in describing 
Paul’s situation and activity, instead of saying that both 
continued for two years and lasted up to the time when 
he wrote, shows clearly that the change in Paul’s con- 
dition, with which the author was familiar, put an end 
also to his abiding in his own hired house, and to the 
preaching which he had carried on unhindered during 


58 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this residence (vol. ii. 58f.). Consequently, at the very 
earliest, Luke could not have written these lines before 
Philippians was written, ae. before the summer of 63 
(vol. i. 539 ff.). But why does not Luke tell us what it 
was which brought the two years’ residence to an end, 
and what the situation was at the time when he wrote ? 
In order to explain this difficulty, it has been supposed 
that Theophilus had been for some time in Rome with 
Luke and Paul, and hence was thoroughly informed about 
the facts of which Luke here says nothing, although he 
indicates that he was acquainted with them. In that case 
xxvill. 30f. is superfluous, and the form of the sentence 
is ag unnatural as it could well be. In fact, a very 
common custom (n. 10) made the end of the work a most 
fitting place in which to explain to Theophilus in a second 
address why the author thought it appropriate to break 
off at this point and to conclude his work in so peculiar 
a manner (cf. 2 Tim. i. 18). All that is strange entirely 
disappears, however, if Luke, having reached an important 
turning-point in the history of Christianity, appropriately 
brought to a close the second book of his work, at the 
same time intending to continue or to complete it in 
a third book. It will be remembered that at the close 
of the Gospel, after the account of the resurrection, there 
is added a short sketch of what happened up to the time 
of Jesus’ ascension, and of what took place immediately 
thereafter (Luke xxiv. 44-53; n. 14), and then the author 
begins the second book by going back again to the time 
between the resurrection and the end of the period during 
which the disciples waited for “‘the promise of the 
Father,” in order to set forth these events in greater 
detail (Acts i. 1-26), telling us here for the first time 
how the period of waiting was brought to a close (Acts 
ii. 1-47). In the same way, in Acts xxviii. 30, 31, he 
adds to the narrative, which up to this point has been 
very detailed, a short sketch of the situation which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 59 


followed the events last narrated, intending to take up the 
account at this point in his third book. ‘The only inap- 
propriateness in the comparison is the fact that Paul does 
not take the place in Acts which both in reality and accord- 
ing to the testimony of Acts i. 1 Jesus has in the Gospel. 

The title pdfs tév drocrdd\wy is not Luke’s, but is, 
notwithstanding, of very ancient date, as is evidenced by 
the fact that it is the only title which we have in the 
tradition (n. 15). Moreover, it reproduces correctly the 
impression which every reader gets from Acts of the 
author's purpose. Beginning with Acts i. 1, it is his 
purpose to set forth the continuation, through the apostles 
and the apostolic Church, of the work and teaching begun 
by Jesus. From chap. xiii. onwards, however, Acts is 
simply a history of missionary work among the Gentiles 
under the leadership of Paul. ‘The little which is said 
of the other apostles and of the mother Church is 
incidental, and is found only in connections where Paul | 
and the missionary work among the Gentiles come into 
contact with Jerusalem (Acts xv. 21). Nothing is said of 
the missionary preaching of the earlier apostles and the 
brothers of Jesus (Acts xii. 17; Gal. ii. 9; 1 Cor. ix. 5; 
2 Pet. 1.16). It is unnecessary to prove that this silence 
on Luke’s part is not due to lack of appreciation of those 
who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from 
the beginning. Rather does Luke exhibit the character 
of a genuine historian when he gives a continuous treat- 
ment of the history of missionary work among the 
Gentiles in chaps. xilii—xxvill., proving that he did not 
feel it necessary, in view of the «ade&js of Luke 1. 3, to 
write a chronicle or a journal of the nature of an historical 
calendar. But this one-sided development of a single 
thread of the narrative is incomprehensible unless it was 
Luke’s intention in a third book to go back and take up 
again the history of the original apostles. 

A third book is demanded also by the prologue, If 


60 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Luke intended to set forth the history of Christianity to 
the point of development which it had reached up to his 
time (above, pp. 45, 53), this plan is by no means carried 
out, if the work is complete in the two books before us. 
Wise remarks have been made about the beautiful contrast 
between the message of the angels in the Temple in 
Jerusalem and in Mary’s chamber in Nazareth (Luke 
i. 11, 28) and the unhindered preaching of the gospel 
in the capital of the world (xxvii. 31). But the gospel 
had been preached in Rome and a large Church organised 
there long before Paul’s arrival. Furthermore, the 
meagre sketch in Acts xxvii. 30f. is no fitting parallel 
to the exalted poetical narratives of Luke i. 5-56, and, 
what is even more to the point, the close of Acts does 
not conclude even the history of Paul or of the missionary 
work among the Gentiles, to say nothing of the history 
of Christianity. The author who wrote Luke xxiv. 47 
and Acts i. 8,and the Luke who was with the imprisoned 
apostle when he wrote 2 Tim. iv. 7, 17, could not have 
regarded the Christian preaching as practically at an end 
before Paul so regarded it. Moreover, anyone giving 
such a repeated and full account as Luke gives of Jesus’ 
prophecy concerning the judgment of Jerusalem (Luke 
KxL 32; cf xix. 41-44, xxi. 20-24, xxiii. 28-31) could 
not well, before the year 70, have thought of the history 
of Christianity as having reached its conclusion even 
temporarily. 

But if the events recorded in 2 Tim., the death of 
Peter and Paul, and the fall of Jerusalem, had already 
taken place (§ 62), the writer had abundant material for 
a third book. And that he actually intended to add a 
tpitos Noyos when he began the second book, or at least 
when he revised it after it was completed, he himself 
indicates in Acts i. 1; since it is not conceivable that one 
who could write the finished sentences which we have in 
Luke i, 1~4 should have made the mistake of writing 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 61 


Tov mev mporov for the more correct Tov pév mpotepov Aoyov 
in Acts i. 1, if he intended to say that the Gospel was the 
first of two books only and not one of a number of books 
(n. 16). For, in this passage, he is not following an older 
source in which there were Hebraisms, and the style of 
which was otherwise inferior, but is freely expressing his 
own thoughts at the beginning of a book. It is painful 
to reflect what we have lost, either because of Luke’s 
failure to write this third book, or, what is less probable, 
because of its disappearance immediately after it was 
written. This opened the way for the petty fabricators 
of the second century, who were fond of treating the 
material which Luke had reserved for his third book. In 
all the apocryphal literature dealing with the history of 
the apostles which is preserved to us, we notice dependence 
upon Luke’s second book and imitation of his style, but 
there is not a single page of it even remotely comparable 
to one of the chapters of our Acts (n. 17). . 

Even before the particular material which Luke 
worked over, the sources which he employed, and the 
trustworthiness of his accounts, are investigated, it is 
possible to affirm that he kept in view throughout his 
work the purposes expressed and suggested in his dedi- 
cation. He does not, like Matthew, write an apology 
on behalf of Christ and His Church in order to meet 
objections of a national character. Nor does he, like 
Mark, present, from a single point of view, narratives 
which have been impressed upon his memory by frequent 
hearing and repetition. His design is rather, as a Greek 
historian, to set forth the history of Christianity from its 
beginnings to the completion which it had reached in his 
own time, and he aims to do this in such a way that his 
exposition, based upon thorough investigation and pre- 
senting the whole development of Christianity connectedly, 
shall impress, with a sense of the trustworthiness of the 
Christian traditions, a cultured Gentile who has heard 


62 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


much about the facts which are current in the Christian 
Church and held to be the basis of its faith, who has 
become interested in this history, and whose relations to 
individual Christians, like the author, are friendly. 

One of the first things which impresses us when we 
compare Luke with the other Gospels is the effort to 
show how one thing develops out of another. If the epi 
dv katnxnOns (Luke i. 4) means anything, Theophilus must 
already have heard something about John, the forerunner 
of Jesus, possibly no more than what is said about him 
in Mark i. 2-8 or Matt. ii. 1-12. Luke gives an account 
of the messages which indicated the future significance of 
the Baptist even before his birth, of the hopes awakened 
by his birth, of his hermit life (i. 80), and of his call to 
be a prophet (iii. 2; ef. Jer. i. 4). The unusual character 
of the circumstances of John’s birth helped to render 
faith in the greater miracle of Jesus’ birth easier, not 
only for Jesus’ own mother (i. 36f.), but also for the 
reader of Luke’s Gospel. The kinship and _ friendly 
relation between the two families, and the mingling of 
their hopes in connection with the children, make more 
comprehensible the subsequent relations between John 
and Jesus. If, as was undoubtedly the case, Theophilus 
had heard that the Christ whom the Christians followed 
was called Jesus of Nazareth, and if, as was probable, he 
had heard also that He was born in Bethlehem, it was 
natural for Luke to explain to him the combination of 
circumstances by which it came about that the parents 
of Jesus, who lived in Nazareth, journeyed to Bethlehem 
shortly before His birth (ii. 1-5, i 26f). In keeping 
with the brief account of the development of the child 
John into the type of man that he afterwards became 
(i. 80), is the story concerning the twelve-year-old Jesus, 
which, in its setting (ii. 40, 51-52), is meant to serve as 
a clear proof of the extremely happy but entirely natural 
and thoroughly human development of the child Jesus. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 63 


While the effort to treat the material “ pragmatically ” 
generally involves the retention of the proper chrono- 
logical order, it is nevertheless evident from the outset 
that this order is not observed at the expense of this 
desired “pragmatism.” In 1. 80 the history of John’s 
life is told up to the point where it is taken up again in 
ii. 2, while i. 1 goes back to a much earlier dave a few 
faonths later than the events recorded ini. 57-79. The 
history of the Baptist’s public work is developed in 
ili. 19, 20 to its conclusion, which must have been at 
least several months after its beginning (iil. 2). But in 
iii. 21, when he takes up again the history of the man 
Jesus, he begins with an event which took place long 
before the arrest of the Baptist, and gives Jesus’ 
genealogical descent at this point instead of in connection 
with i. 27. The contrast between the divine sonship of 
Jesus revealed from heaven and His supposed and out- 
wardly valid descent from Joseph (iii. 22, 23), is of much 
more importance in the mind of the author than the mere 
mechanical arrangement of the material in its chrono- 
logical order. No specific mention is made of the fact 
that John was in prison when Jesus began His work in 
Galilee, described from iv. 14 onwards, and when John 
sent two of his disciples to ask the now famous question 
(vii. 19; ef. per contra Matt. iv. 12, xi. 2; Mark i. 14). 
Nor can the reader infer this from the order of events in 
iii. 18-23. Even if he could, it is a question whether 
this would enable him to understand the author’s mean- 
ing in all the narratives that follow ii. 23. What is true 
of Luke iii. 21, which goes back to a point of time prior 
to ili. 20, and of the account of the temptation (iv. 1-18), 
which precedes the arrest of the Baptist, as is shown by 
its immediate connection with the account of the baptism 
and is confirmed by all the other traditions, can very 
well be true also of more than one of the narratives 
following iv. 13. The history of John is evidently 


‘ons 


64 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


concluded with ii. 20. Not even his execution is 
narrated later, though knowledge of it is assumed in 
1x, 7-9. 

It is apparent, not only in the account of John but 
everywhere, how little Luke intended to reproduce all the 
events in their exact chronological order. In the account 
of Jesus’ work in Galilee he begins after a general de- 
scription (iv. 14, 15), by relating His visit to His native 
village, although he does not conceal from the reader 
that Jesus had already done many remarkable works in 
Capernaum (iv. 23). After this account of the visit to 
Nazareth there follow several chronologically connected 
incidents describing Jesus’ work in Capernaum, the city 
of Galilee most honoured by Jesus with His works 
(iv. 81-42; ef. iv. 23, vil. 1, x. 15). Finally, he shows 
how the other cities of Palestine were at the same time 
not neglected (iv. 43f.). The logical arrangement of the 
material which here ‘takes the place of the chronological 
order is not due to dogmatic considerations, as in the case 
of Matthew, but arises from Luke’s historical method. 
If we accept the reading 7%s “Iovdaias in iv. 44, which is 
the better attested reading, and which is to be considered 
genuine also, because its character is such that it could 
not well have been invented (n. 18), there is no doubt 
that Luke intends his first description of Jesus’ work in 
Galilee to be concluded at iv. 43 with Jesus’ explanation 
that the nature of His calling made it necessary for Him 
to preach also to the other cities, z.e. to all the cities of 
the people and land to which He was sent. Although 
this statement makes it quite impossible to limit Jesus’ 
work to Galilee, in the general statement that follows 
(iv. 44), which may apply to many of the separate 
narratives which follow, Luke goes on to say that Jesus, 
true to His word, did not limit Himself to Capernaum, or 
Nazareth, or even Galilee, but preached in the synagogues 
of Judea, %.e. throughout the whole of the Holy Land 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 65 


(n. 18). The general description of iv. 14f. is not, 
therefore, repeated in ver. 43f., but there is substituted 
for it a description of a very different and much more 
comprehensive character, which may even be contrasted 
toiv. 14f Consequently the reader, having only Luke’s 
account, is at a loss to know in what part of Palestine to 
look for the places which the author sometimes groups 
together in a summary fashion (viii. 1, 4, ix. 6, x. 1), 
sometimes mentions separately, but without names or 
any other indication of their geographical location (v. 12, 
vii. 11, 37, x. 38, xi. 10), especially since he sometimes 
mentions all the villages of Judea together (v. 17). If 
it were not known from other sources where Nain was 
situated (vil. 11), one might be led by Luke’s account 
to seek it in Judea. On the other hand, the village 
mentioned in x. 38, the name of which is given in 
John xi. 1, 18, together with the fact that it was situated 
near Jerusalem, so far as Luke’s account is concerned, 
could have been in Galilee. There are occasional state- 
ments which throw light upon the situation of separate 
Joealities (vill. 27, cf. ver. 26, ix. 51, 52, 56, xiii, 22). 
But these are of no great importance, since by far the 
greater part of the narratives follow each other without 
any indication as to time order (v. 1, 12, 17, viii. 4, 19, 
22, ix. 1, 7, xi. 1, 14, etc.). It is seldom even remarked 
that an event recorded after another occurred in this 
Order (v..27, viii. 1, ix. 28, x. 1), The use of such 
expressions as “on one of the days” (v. 17, viii. 22, 
xx. 1), which does not occur in the other Gospels, and 
the rarity of definite indications as to time relations 
(vi. 1, vii. 1, 11, ix. 28, 37, x. 21, xi. 1, 31), show that 
Luke’s investigations had not enabled him to obtain an 
exact idea of the order in which the gospel events took 
place, and also that he was conscious of this fact. 
Although Luke shows an interest, not to be observed 
in the other Gospels, in supplying the history of Jesus’ 


VOL. III. 5 


66 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


life with chronological notices (i. 36, i. 21, 22, 42, iii. 23), 
and in connecting it chronologically with facts of uni- 
versal and national history (i. 5, i. 1f, i, 1f; Acts 
Xi. 28, xvill. 2, 12), he does not assume a knowledge of the 
details of the chronology of Jesus’ public ministry which 
it was beyond his power to obtain. ‘This is evidenced even 
in connection with the last days in Jerusalem, both by the 
absence of connection between single events in the section, 
the setting of which is marked by the general descriptions 
of xix. 47f. and xxi. 37f., and by the use in xx. 1 of the 
same év uid tov Huepov Which occurs earlier. What seems 
to be the account of a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem 
in ix. 51-xix. 46 is, therefore, to be regarded as only 
apparently such. It may be that the scattered notices of 
this journey in Luke, while not giving the order of events 
with entire correctness, are for the most part accurate 
(n. 19). But it was not the intention of the author to be 
understood as giving such a chronology. For, in the first 
place, there is no decernible relation among these scattered 
notices. There is nothing here which resembles a list of 
stations, as in the accounts of the journeys in Acts (xiii.— 
xxvill.). No mention is made even of the journey through 
Perea (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1). In the second place, 
in this section of the book there is the same lack of con- 
nection between the single narratives which occurs earlier 
(e.g. xi. 1, 14, 29, xii. 13, 22, 54, xiii. 6, 10, xiv, 1) ye 
xvi. 1, xvil. 1, 20, xviii. 1, 9, 15, 18), so that the reader 
cannot tell when and where the separate events took place. 
If we know that what is narrated in Luke x. 38-42 took 
place in a village near Jerusalem, our information is not 
derived from Luke, and it would be a misunderstanding 
of his account to infer from it that this unnamed village. 
(Bethany) was on the way from Galilee to Jerusalem, and | 
farther removed from the city than the places indicated in | 
xiii. 22, xvii. 11, xviii. 31, 35. In the therd place, it is. 
apparent that the first notice regarding the journey to: 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 67 


Jerusalem (ix. 51), which is given with a special solemnity, 
was not intended to mark an important transition in the 
narrative. There is a close connection with what precedes. 
This is, however, so throughout. While these scattered 
notices of movements from place to place have no con- 
nection and are too few to enable us to form any clear 
conception of the journey to Jerusalem, there is every- 
where evident a connection between the contents of the 
single narratives quite independent of the chronological 
relations. In the fourth place, even where places are 
clearly indicated, as in 1x. 51, xill. 22, xvi. 11, it is evident 
that this is done in order to make clear events immediately 
connected with them, and is not designed to furnish the 
outlines of a journey. ‘The fact that in the history of the 
Passion and in most parts of Acts the chronological order 
is more apparent and more strictly adhered to, is due, in 
the first place, to the more exact knowledge which the 
writer had regarding these parts of the history from the 
tradition and his own recollection. In the second place, 
while it was quite possible to record single deeds, dis- 
courses, and conversations which took place during Jesus’ 
Galilean tours, without knowing the order in which they 
took place, this could not be done in the history of the 
Passion and Resurrection, or in an account of the extension 
of missionary work from Antioch to Rome. The narrative 
in Acts does not, however, resemble a chronicle. Acts ix. 1 
refers back to vill. 3, and what is recorded in ix. 1-17 can 
have taken place before the events recorded in viii. 5-40. 
In xi. 19 the narrative is taken up where it had been left 
off in viii. 1-4, and what is recorded in xi. 22 may have 
occurred before chap. x. The episode of chap. xii. belongs 
before the point in the narrative where it is recorded, and 
‘apparently the same is true of xi. 27 (Part XI.). Attention 
has already been called to the order of xviii. 23 and xix. 1 
(above, p. 30, n. 8). If Luke designed his proposed 
third book to continue to its completion the history of the 


68 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


apostles (above, p. 53f.), it would have been necessary 
for him to take up the narrative again at Acts xi. 17. 
Just such a fact as this, and Luke’s carefulness about his 
‘chronological statements in the Gospel, show how conscious 
he was that his task was that of a historian. 

Another means which Luke uses to impress Theophilus 
with the trustworthiness of Christian historical tradition 
is the frequent connection of this history with the events 
of political history. No N.T. writer except Luke mentions 
a Roman emperor by name. He mentions Augustus, 
Tiberius, and Claudius (Luke i. 1, ii. 1; Acts xi. 28, 
xviii. 2), and when he says that the famine prophesied in 
the Church in Antioch took place under Claudius (Acts 
xi. 28), he implies that the prophecy was made in the time 
of Caligula, Claudius’ predecessor (Part XI.). The decrees 
of Augustus (Luke ii. 1) and of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2) 
affect the history of Christianity. This is not something 
existing only in the realm of pious fancy. It connects 
itself chronologically with a definite year in the reign of 
Tiberius (Luke iii. 1). This impression of the thoroughly 
real character of Christianity is strengthened by the men- 
tion of all the rulers throughout the region which was the 
scene of the gospel history (Luke i. 1-2), and which after 
the fall of Jerusalem was ruled by Agrippa mu. (Schiirer, 
i. 594 [Eng. trans. 1. 11. 201]). The reader must have 
known that Quirinius was the governor of Syria (Luke 
ii, 2) and Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts xviii. 12), 
since their governorships are mentioned in order to fix 
dates, which is not true in the case of Sergius Paulus 
(xiii. 7). In general it will be noticed that the number 
of proper names in Luke is much larger than in the other 
Gospels, and that these names include not only those of 
persons in political life and of actors in the narrative, but 
also of numerous persons whose position is entirely sub- 
ordinate (n. 20). This reveals the investigator who has 
taken great pains to inform himself regarding the details — 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 69 


of the history he records, and also the story-teller who 
strove to bring his characters out of the shadows of 
uncertain tradition into the clear light of reality. 

The author’s purpose fully to win over to Christianity 
a Gentile who was still outside the Church but favourably 
inclined to Christianity, shows itself in various ways. Such 
a purpose imposed upon the Christian historian a certain 
reserve. He could not use throughout the sonorous 
language of the Church, but was under the necessity of 
handling the material objectively, as it were, and retaining 
in his narrative a certain secular tone. Luke does, how- 
ever, employ the language of the Church when frequently 
in his narrative he calls Jesus o xvpios, a usage not to be 
found in Matthew and Mark (n. 21). But this simply 
shows that Luke was not one of the eye-witnesses of the 
gospel history who was in daily intercourse with Jesus, 
but that through their preaching he became one of the 
members of the Church which accepted Jesus as its Lord. . 
On the other hand, he represents persons in personal inter- 
course with Jesus as addressing Him by His name, ‘Incod 
(above, p. 37 f.), and in six instances he uses émvordra, which 
does not occur in the other Gospels, and which is not an 
ecclesiastical word (v. 5, vill. 24, 45, ix. 33, 49, xvii. 13). 
This replaces the Hebrew Rabbz, which Luke statedly 
avoids, and is used as the equivalent of SiddeKade, which 
oceurs very frequently, and «vpse, which is only sparingly 
used. 

Luke’s very meagre account of the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper, which early led to the introduction of whole- 
sale interpolations in Luke xxii. 16-20 (above, p. 39f.), 
is to be explained only by the assumption that the narra- 
tive was intended for a non-Christian. The word spoken 
in connection with the distribution of the bread, ‘‘ This is 
My body,” could impress such a person only as a profound 
fioure. The single word which, according to the genuine 
text of Luke, Jesus spoke as He distributed the cup, 


70 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


contained no reference to His blood, and consequently 
suggested no mystery. Heathen slanders associated with 
the Christian teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper are 
very ancient. Pliny, in his report to Trajan, speaks as 
if such slanders were common, but not confirmed by his 
judicial inquiries. Although we cannot prove that these 
slanders were current as early as the time when Luke was 
written, it may be assumed that this was the case, or 
rather it may be inferred from Luke’s account. But even 
if this were not so, it is entirely conceivable that Luke 
should hesitate to unveil this deepest mystery of Christian 
worship before the eyes of one who was uninitiated, and 
that he should hesitate to make a remark about eating the 
body and drinking the blood of Jesus which might arouse 
the suspicion of one who was still outside the Church. 
In thus guarding the mystery Luke betrays his Greek 
character, and the fact that he is writing for Greeks. 
This shows itself also in very many other directions. 
Without in any way eliminating the Israelitish char- 
acter of the beginnings of the history of Christianity 
(n. 22), Luke emphasises strongly from the very first the 
universal significance of Jesus. That Jesus was born in 
the city of David was brought about by a decree of the 
emperor, who, however, had no thought of this result, so 
that it was really due to the overruling providence of God 
(ii. 1). Angels proclaim the glory of God, who through 
His Anointed One is to establish peace over the whole earth 
among men of good-will (ii. 14). Simeon, wholly under 
the dominance of thoroughly Jewish ideas and forms, 
prophesies for the child a saving and enlightening in- 
fluence upon all peoples (ii. 31 f.). Only in Luke iii. 4-6 
is the quotation of the prophecy of Isaiah, which is always 
associated with the Baptist, continued so as to include 
the verse in which the salvation announced by John is 
described as a salvation for all flesh (iii. 6, ef. John xvii. 2). 
The descent of the Son of David and Son of God is carried 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 71 


back beyond Abraham to Adam and even to God Himself. 
The coming of Jesus marks not only the consummation of 
the history of Israel, but the consummation of the history 
of the race, and the divine sonship of men established in 
creation finds its consummation in the divine sonship of 
Jesus (iil. 23-38, cf. Acts xvii. 28, 31). The account in 
iv. 1-13, which is thus introduced, ‘shows how Jesus as 
the second Adam overcame the temptation by which the 
first Adam fell. With manifest fondness he writes of 
the Gentile whose faith was great (vii. 2-10), and of the 
merciful and grateful Samaritans (x. 33, xvii. 16). Pilate 
is presented in a light which is in no way more favourable 
than that in which he is portrayed in the other Gospels 
(ef. xiii. 1, xxii. 25; Acts i. 23, iv. 27), but the thrice 
repeated witness of this Gentile to Jesus’ innocence is 
much more strongly emphasised than in Matthew and 
Mark (xxii. 4, 14, 15, 22; Acts ili. 13). Besides this we 
have the testimony of the Gentile centurion in xxiii. 47, | 
which seems to be told here in a form more historically 
probable than in Matt. xxvii. 54; Mark xv. 39. In Acts 
vill, 5—xi. 18, Luke describes at length how the natural 
hesitation of the older apostles to turn to the Samaritans 
and then to the Gentiles was overcome by the providence 
of God, and in Acts xv. he shows how the freedom of the 
Gentile Christians from the law was championed by the 
Gentile missionaries and acknowledged by the original 
apostles and the mother Church. Jesus’ command to 
preach the gospel to all peoples upon earth (Luke xxiv. 
47; Acts i. 8, ix. 15, cf. ii. 89, iii. 25) is not here obscured 
by words which are open to misinterpretation and harsh 
in tone, as we find in Matt. x. 5, xv. 21-28; Mark vii. 
24-30. Frequently practical piety, honesty, and chari- 
tableness are declared to be preparations for greater bless- 
ing among the Gentiles (Luke vil. 2-5; Acts x. 2-4, 35, 
xiii. 7) as well as among the Jews (Luke 1. 6, i. 25, 36f, 
xix. 8, xxiii. 50, cf. Acts xvii. 11), and the hwmane dis- 


72 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


position even of those who have no close relation to the 
gospel is recognised (Acts xix. 31, xxvii. 8, 43, xxviii. 2, 7). 
Sometimes also the official integrity of individuals is 
simply related without special attention being called to 
it (Acts xvii, 12-17, xix. 35-41, xxv. 1-26, 32, as dis- 
tinguished from xxiv. 24—27). 

On the other hand, Luke, in much stronger colours 
than any other evangelist, depicts Jesus as the friend and 
Saviour of those most deeply sunk in sin and farthest 
astray, and represents penitent humility as the way of 
salvation (Luke v. 8, 29-32, vii. 29, 34, 37-50, xv. 1-38, 
Xviil. 9-14, xix. 7-10, xxiii. 39-48). A Greek who read 
the parables in chap. xv. would necessarily apply them to 
men like himself rather than to the Jews. While such 
a reader might be astonished, he would nevertheless be 
impressed by the fact that the great ascetic and mighty 
prophet John preached an almost trivial morality (iii. 
10-14), and that Jesus, who was free from any gloomy 
asceticism (v. 33-39, vil. 34, xiii. 26), manifested deep 
sympathy with all human sufferings even when the sufferer 
was guilty (vi. 18, xili, 15f., xix. 41-44, xxiii. 28, ef. 
ver. 34), avoided all narrow and violent fanaticism (ix. 
49f., 54f., xxii. 50f.), and always in word and deed 
preached a brotherly love which transcended the cere- 
monial scruples of Judaism and went beyond the national 
bounds (vi. 6-11, 27-36, x. 25-87, x1. 41-46, xiii. 10-17, 
xiv. 1-6, xvii. 11-19, xix. 7-10). There are also instances 
where Jesus enjoins good manners and refinement in social 
intercourse (vii. 44-46, x. 5-11, xiv. 7-10, 12-14, xx. 46f,, 
ef. xu. 37, but also xvii. 7-10). The choice and arrange- 
ment of material suggests a writer of kindred spirit with 
the man who wrote Phil. iv. 8 (n. 23). 

No single moral obligation is so richly and variously 
illustrated as that indicated by the words poverty and 
wealth. In addition to the account of the rich young 
man, the story of the widow with the mites, and several 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS WS 


sayings about benevolence which are to be found also in 
Matthew and Mark (Luke vi. 30-36, xii. 83, xviii. 18-380, 
xxi. 1-4), the instances recorded in vi. 24, xi. 41, xii. 
13-21, xiv. 12-14, 16-24 (as regards this point not to be 
compared with Matt. xxii, 2-10), xvi. 1-81, xix. 2-10, 
are found only in Luke. Only in Luke xvi. 9, 11 is the 
Aramaic word mamona, which was current in Antioch 
(vol. i. 18), modified by the adjective unrighteous, and in 
xix. 8 an example is given to show by how great un- 
righteousness many riches are accumulated. Jesus refuses 
to have anything to do with the legal side of questions 
about property (xii. 13-15), in order that He may lay 
greater weight upon the moral use of earthly possessions, 
especially when these are great. Luke has portrayed for 
all time in a striking and incomparable manner that con- 
fidence in riches devoted solely to one’s own service which 
is so foolish because of the uncertainty of human life (xii. 
16-21); the complete absorption of the rich in luxurious . 
living with their accompanying heartlessness towards the 
poor and sorely afflicted brother at their door (xvi. 19-31); 
the power of riches even over men of noble spirit and men 
who strive after eternal things (xviii. 18-30); a magic 
influence which can be broken only by the power of God. 
‘Woe to the rich,” he says, who find their satisfaction in 
this life, who give themselves up to the quiet enjoyment 
of life’s comfort, and who are always sure of being treated 
with deference on every side (vi. 24-26). But through 
God’s power it is possible even for these (xviii. 27, cf. iii. 8) 
not only to realise the fact that man’s life does not consist 
in riches (xii. 15), and that possessions are only an un- 
important good, bestowed for a short time and not really 
belonging to the possessor (xvi. 9-12), but also to be freed 
from the bondage of mammon (xvi. 18). The use of 
money for the benefit of one’s neighbour is proof that a 
man possesses the state of mind which leads into the 
kingdom of God (xviii. 22, xvi. 9); it sanctifies also his 


74 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


earthly life (xi. 41). This generosity is not one of the 
works of which the Pharisees boast (xviii. 12, cf. x1. 42, 
xvi. 14, xx. 47), but is found in the wealthy tax-gatherer 
(xix. 8) and the poverty-stricken widow (xxi. 1-4). Love 
to Jesus is manifested in the same way (vili. 3, cf. xxiii. 
50-53). This very spirit was exercised on a large scale 
by the early Church (Acts u. 44f., iv. 32-37, vi. 1-6, 
ix. 36-39). It was also a bond of union between the 
Gentile Church and the mother Church (xi. 28-30, xii. 25, 
xxiv. 17). It is commended in the case of the Gentile 
Cornelius (x. 2-4, 31, 35, cf. Luke vii. 5). The love of 
money, of which a fearful example was not wanting in the 
early Church (Acts v. 1-11), had no influence on the first 
preachers of the gospel (vill. 20, xx. 31-34). Possessing 
no money, they were yet rich in God (Acts ii. 6, cf. Luke 
xii. 21), and observed the word of their Master, “To give 
is more blessed than to receive” (Acts xx. 25). Instead 
of scenting in this social morality which pervades both the 
books of Paul’s disciple, Luke, a residuum of Ebonism 
(n. 24), it is more natural to assume that here also Luke 
has in mind the fact that his work is intended for Theo- 
philus, a Gentile of high position, and also, according to 
trustworthy tradition the owner of a large house in 
Antioch (above, p. 5, n. 5), before the gate of which 
it is very possible that a Lazarus may sometimes have 
lingered. 

It was also important in writing to men, of whom Luke 
chose Theophilus as a type, to point out that Christ and 
Christianity stood in no hostile relation to the State. In 
striking contrast to Jesus’ recognition of the obligation to 
pay taxes (xx. 20-26), stand the false accusations of the 
Sanhedrin that Jesus refused to pay tribute and was re- 
bellious against the authority of the State (xxiii. 2, 5, 14), 
which are related by no other evangelist with so much 
fulness as by Luke, to which also he alone refers at an 
earlier point in the narrative (xx. 20). But the falsity of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACT'S 75 


these particular charges is proved by the thrice repeated 
acknowledgment of His innocence by Pilate, an acknow- 
ledgment which is based upon the testimony of king 
Herod (xxiii. 4, 14-15, 22). It was only the weakness 
of this Roman oflicial’s character, whose attitude was 
sometimes that of violence against the Jews (xiii. 1) and 
sometimes that of false compliance with their will, which 
led him to give over to their fanaticism the Jesus who, by 
his own confession as well as by the confession of other 
Gentiles (xxill. 47), was righteous, while he released a 
robber and murderer in His place (xxiii. 25). But even 
among the “transgressors with whom He was reckoned” 
(xxii. 37),—the criminals between whom He was crucified, 
—there was one to confess that Jesus was innocent of 
all offence against the civil law and to acknowledge His 
future kingship (xxiii. 39-43). Personal interests led 
the rulers of the Jews (Acts iv. 1-7, 18, v. 28) first to 
reprimand the apostles, then to imprison and scourge 
them. The first martyr’s blood was shed through the 
testimony of a false witness and by a tumultuous pro- 
ceeding which violated (John xviii. 31) existing laws (see 
Acts vi. 11-14, vii. 54-60). In order to win the favour 
of the Jews by posing as a protector of their religion, the 
bigoted Agrippa 1., who shortly thereafter lost his life in 
an attempt to deify himself in heathen fashion, murdered 
‘James the son of Zebedee, while Peter escaped his hand 
only by a miracle (chap. xii). On several occasions Paul 
was accused and unjustly treated on the ground that he 
taught doctrines hostile to the Roman government (xvi. 
21-238, 35-39, xvii. 7-9, xviii. 13). Likewise his opposi- 
tion to heathen idolatry (xix. 26 ff.) and his alleged 
hostility to Judaism and Jewish ceremonials (xxi. 28, 
xxiv. 1-9) often involved him in danger, and finally led 
to a long imprisonment. Repeatedly he saved himself 
from worse treatment by appeal to his Roman citizenship, 
and compelled the officials to apologise for their encroach- 


76 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ments upon the law (xvi. 37, 38), or to seek escape from 
the consequences of their action by perverting their official 
reports (xxii. 24-29, xxill. 25-30). It was the unworthy 
dependence upon his Jewish wife and the Jewish people of 
the procurator Felix, who was as base as he was low born, 
and to whose infamous immorality and unrighteousness 
Luke calls attention (xxiv. 25; ef. Schiirer, 1. 571 f. [Eng. 
trans. I. ii. 174]), which led him unjustly to prolong Paul's 
case (xxiv. 24-26). On the other hand, where Paul had 
to do with honourable officials, who were of more dis- 
tinguished birth and more noble culture, such as Gallio 
(xviii. 12-17) and Porcius Festus (xxv. 11—xxvi. 32), he 
was treated with impartiality and was protected against 
the fanaticism of the Jews. Several Asiarchs in Ephesus, 
representatives of the emperor cult, even showed him 
favour (xix. 31). While king Agrippa IL, in pure irony, 
declares himself inclined to accept Christianity (xxvi. 28), 
the “intelligent” proconsul of Cyprus, who bore the same 
name as the apostle, really received a deep impression of 
the truth, although we cannot say how lasting this im- 
pression was (xi. 7-12). 

After all the cheering experiences, all the divine inter- 
positions and deliverances of the second book, the reader 
would expect nothing else than to find in a third book the 
account of new victories for the good cause of the gospel 
in Rome and in the Roman empire. There is to be no 
escape from persecution (xiv. 22). As regards this point 
the prophecy at the beginning (Luke ii. 34) corresponds 
literally to the historical statement at the close (Acts 
XXvllil. 22). Opposition is not to be confined to words. 
The blood of martyrs will also be shed, as it has heen from 
the beginning, but the true minister of. the word does 
not allow this to hinder his course or to dishearten him 
(xx. 24, xxi. 13), but with every new station reached he 
gains new courage (xxviii. 15). It has often been re- 
marked that Acts is pervaded by a joyful spirit ; but this 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS ft 


is just as true of the Gospel (n. 25). This work also was 
suited to make a favourable impression upon an educated 
Greek whose keen interest in the gospel has been already 
awakened. 

Although enough has been said to prove the symmetry 
of the plan and the unity of the entire work, as regards 
the latter point we have independent evidence from the 
agreement as to the manner in which the material is 
handled in Luke and in Acts. If Luke iii. 2 gives the 
impression that in Pilate’s procuratorship Annas shared 
the high-priesthood with Caiaphas, and was the more 
influential of the two, the same is true of Acts iv. 6. 
The dzoypa¢y of Luke ii. 1-3 is referred to again in Acts 
v. 87 by the same name. The identity of the two is not 
affected by the fact that in the latter passage the taxing is 
described as the one famous taxing, and hence as the only 
one of its kind, whereas in Luke ii. 2 it is spoken of as if 
it were a first taxing; for the expression in Luke does not | 
necessarily mean more than that such a taxing had never 
before taken place in Palestine. There was no occasion 
in Luke 11. 2 to mention the insurrection headed by Judas. 
But Luke shows that he was familiar with the then exist- 
ing party of the Zealots, not only in Acts i. 13 but also in 
Luke vi. 15, and he is the only one of the gospel writers 
to designate them by their Greek name which is found in 
both books (n. 26). The story of how the tetrarch Herod 
took part in Jesus’ trial, and especially of how he and 
Pilate were made friends through their common relation 
to Jesus, found only in Luke xxii. 6-12, 15, prepares 
the way for Acts iv. 27, a passage which would be quite 
unintelligible without this preceding narrative. Other 
references in Acts to the gospel history agree entirely with 
the accounts in the Gospel (Acts ui. 13 f = Luke xxiii. 16; 
Acts x. 41 = Luke xxiv. 41f.). Although Luke does not 
in any way represent the work of Jesus as confined to 
Galilee (above, p. 64 and § 63), yet in both book she 


- 


78 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


emphasises the fact that the whole gospel movement had 
its beginning in Galilee, spreading thence over the whole 
of Judea, z.e. Palestine (Luke xxii. 5; Acts x. 37; ef. 
Luke iv. 14, xxi. 59; xxiii. 49°;;-Acts 1. 11, u: 7, xmiaby 
In the two lists of the apostles (Luke vi. 14-16; Acts 
i. 13) the names are not given in exactly the same order, 
but both agree, as against Matthew and Mark, in men- 
tioning a “Iovéas ’IaxéBov (Judas [the son] of James), 
who does not appear at all in Matthew or Mark under 
this name (but cf. John xiv. 22). They also agree in 
placing this name after that of Simon, whom Luke alone 
calls a Zealot, using the Greek name of the party in both 
passages. Luke is the only evangelist who says explicitly 
that Jesus called the Twelve, apostles (vi. 13), but it is 
also Luke who teaches in various ways that Jesus did not 
intend the preaching of the gospel to be confined to those 
especially called to be preachers. As at the beginning we 
find the angels (i. 19, 1. 10) and the Baptist (iii. 18) 
preachers of the gospel, so the apostles are told not to 
forbid anyone to preach who is working in Jesus’ name, 
even though he is not of their own number (ix. 49f.). 
Jesus Himself commands others also to proclaim the king- 
dom of God (ix. 60), and sends before Him into all cities 
and places as heralds of His preaching “ other seventy,” 
who afterwards return rejoicing because of the success of 
their work (x. 1-20; n. 27). This may partially explain 
the fact that in Luke i. 2, where another would have used 
simply of dwécroko even at the risk of inaccuracy, Luke 
chooses an expression which includes persons not apostles, 
and calls to mind those who did not become ministers of 
the word until well on in the course of the history which 
he is setting forth. All this is preparatory to the account 
of how, in fact, men who did not belong to the apostolic 
circle, and who had received no special commission to 
preach, opened the way for missionary work, becoming 
the forerunners of the apostles just as the Seventy were 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 79 


of the Lord (Acts viii. 5-40, xi. 19-21, cf. vi. 5, xxi. 8). 
It is also preparatory to the account of the rise of a 
new apostolate coexistent with that of the Twelve, whose 
number was kept intact (Acts i. 15-26), by which the 
gospel was rapidly carried beyond the limits within which 
the Twelve were confined by their immediate calling (Acts 
ix. 8-80, xii. 2ff., xiv. 4, 14). 

Luke’s work shows great variety in regard to language 
and style; but these are not differences as between the 
two books, of which the work consists, but are to be 
observed just as much in the Gospel as in Acts. Since 
these differences are probably to be explained, partly from 
the character of the language in the sources used, partly 
from the different character of the subjects treated, they 
may be appropriately discussed in connection with the 
investigations which follow (§§ 61, 62). It hardly needs 
to be proved in detail that, notwithstanding the differ- 
ences of style which exist between separate parts of the 
work, there is a large number of peculiar words and 
phrases to be found throughout both books, so that from 
the point of view of the language also the unity of the 
work is demonstrated (n. 28). 

Against all the discussions of the purpose of Acts, 
which take into consideration only the second book of 
Luke’s work,—assuming that a somewhat external con- 
nection exists between it and the first book,—stand first 
of all the prologue, when this is correctly interpreted, and 
likewise many of the considerations, some of them old, 
others new, which have been adduced above. In parti- 
cular, there is no longer any necessity of disproving in 
detail the hypothesis of the school of Baur, by which it 
is assumed that the writer of Acts set out with the inten- 
tion of harmonising the unreconciled and irreconcilable 
differences in the apostolic Church, by perverting facts in 
his narrative and intentionally adding fictitious elements 
(n. 29). One could wish, however, that those who admit 


80 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that this hypothesis cannot be accepted in its entirety 
would purge out the remnants of the old leaven that 
remain. Whatever details in the premises of this inter- 
pretation may require refutation will be discussed in 
§§ 62, 63. On the other hand, points in which the 
hypothesis is correct are explained by the purpose which 
the author actually claimed to have had in view through- 
out the entire work. A polemical writing produced in 
the midst of a heated contest and under great stress like 
Galatians, naturally employs language different from that 
used in an historical work designed to set forth the same 
facts perhaps twenty years later. If Luke had introduced 
into his account of the great struggle for the independence 
of the Gentile Church, and for its freedom from the law, 
the excited moods of those who actually participated in 
the struggle, he would simply have betrayed his unfitness 
to be an historian of Christianity. In a work intended 
for a man like Theophilus, who was still outside the 
Church, this would have been particularly unwise, and 
calculated to defeat the very end for which the work was 
intended. There are occasions when Luke does not con- 
ceal the fact that good Christians could differ with Paul 
(Acts xv. 37-39), and reserves his own judgment as to 
who was the more to blame. But with regard to the 
burning question of the age, Luke reports more clearly 
than is done in any of the Pauline letters, how the oppo- 
nents of the apostle, whose Pharasaic origin Luke alone 
records (Acts xv. 5), were severely and clearly rebuked by 
all the authorities of the Church (Acts xv. 10, 19, 24). 
Luke understands better than does the Roman who de- 
clared‘this to be his purpose (Tacitus, Ann. i. 1), the 
meaning of tradere sine ira et studio. 


1. (P. 41.) Zeller (Die AG nach Inhalt wnd Ursprung krit. unters., 1854, 
S. 460, 516) declares it to be practically beyond question that “the greeting” 
of this entire work, which consists of two parts, contained “the name of the 
author,” ze. of the alleged author, “Luke.” But he says nothing further of 
the form and contents of this title. Blass (Acta ap., ed. maj., 1895, p. 2) 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 81 


proposes as the title of Acts, Aovka "Avtioyéws mpos Oeddirov Adyos B’, and 
for the Gospel a similar title only with Adyos a’. But is it conceivable that 
Luke should have given a work dealing with so great a subject such a 
meaningless title as this, which deserved to be lost? On the other hand, 
if he actually chose a better one, why has it not been preserved, like the 
titles of Matt., Mark, and Rev.? In antiquity the title was not such an 
essential and unalterable part of a book as in later times, especially since 
the invention of printing. The fact that the tetulus or index was attached 
to the outside of the closed roll (Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen, S. 66) rendered 
its fate all the more precarious. Our ignorance as to what title Josephus 
gave or meant to give his Bellwm jud. is not due to the loss of the original 
title. Josephus himself quotes the work under different titles in Ant. i. 
11. 4, xiii. 3. 3, 5.9, 10.6; Vita, '74, as do also the ancient writers and the 
MSS. of Josephus’ work (cf. Niese, ed. maj. vi. pref. § 1] and p.3). We are 
familiar with the correspondence between Augustine and Jerome concerning 
the title of the Vir. Ill., which was still unsettled ten or twelve years after 
the appearance of the work (Jerome, Hp. lxvil. 2, exii, 3; Vall. i. 403, 738). 
Least of all was a formal title necessary in the case of a writing which was 
designed and given out by the author as a private document, with no expecta- 
tion that it would have wider circulation. The writing of another Antiochian, 
which in this respect was similar to Luke’s work, was given in the tradition 
the meaningless title GcopiAou mpos Adréodukor a’ B' y’. 

2. (P. 42.) Of. the present writer’s lecture, “‘ Der Geschichtschreiber und 
sein Stoff im NT.,” Zf{KW, 1888, 8. 581-596, especially 8. 590f. Josephus 
wrote his Antiquities at the instigation of his fellow historians, one of whom 
was Epaphroditus (Ant. i. procem. 1, mentioned in the third person), to 
whom the completed work is dedicated in the closing words of the Appendix 
(Vita, 76, kparicre avdpdv "Erappddire), as are also the two books, c. Apion, 
i, 1,ii.1. At the close of the latter work, ii. 41, the writing is declared to be 
intended also for those who, like Epaphroditus, desire to ascertain the truth 
concerning Judaism. Cf. the dedication and prefaces of Irenzus, especially 
i. pref. § 2-3, iii. pref. § 1; Melito in Eus. H. Z. iv. 26. 13; Artemidor. 
Interpretation of dreams [’ Ovepoxpircxa], iv., with reference to the books i.-iii., 
dedicated to a certain Cassius Maximus who is called kpdruoros. 

3. (P. 42.) Kpdrioros is used as a title of the governor of Palestine (Acts 
xxiii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), of the proconsuls of the large provinces (C, J. Gr. 
Nos. 1072, 1073 ; Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus, Inscr. of the Odeum, Nos, 3, 4; 
Dioscorides, Mat. Med. i. proem. ed. Sprengel, p. 4) and other high officials 
(Berl. dgypt. Urk., Bd. i. 373, ii. 373 in the index under dcxarodérns, Sioccnrhs, 
émapxos, émuatparnyos emirpomos, and above, p. 6, n. 5), but it is also used 
to designate other men of distinction (cf. n. 2). Josephus uses interchange- 
ably, in addressing Epaphroditus, xpdriore avdpaév (Vita, 76; ¢. Apion, i. 1), 
Tyuoraré pot, ii. 1 (cf. Ant. xx. 1. 2), and simply "Eradpddire, ii. 41. In 
Christian literature we find in Hpist. ad Diognetwm, xpdriote Acdyvnre 
addressed to a pagan, according to the older view the teacher of Marcus 
Aurelius ; and in the dialogue of Methodius, de Resurr, 33, 54 (Bonwetsch, 
pp. 122, 166) we have xpdriore Ocdpudre addressed to the judge of a debate. 
In addressing one another, the early Christians used either the simple name 

asin 1 Tim. vi. 20; Iren. Ep. ad Florinwm in Eus. H. EF, y. 20, or employed 

VOL, III, 


82 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


distinctively Christian attributives, such as ddedkpé (Philem. 20), yvnove 
avtvye (Phil. iv. 3) "Ovnoipm 76 adeAPS (Melito in Eus. H. £. iv. 26. 13), 
ayarnré (Iren. i. pref. § 2, and in the prefaces of all the books that follow), 
dyarnré pou ddedpe Gedpire (Hippol. de Antichr. i.). By the beginning of the 
third century, secular titles, such as xipre and the like, had come into use also 
among Christians; Alex. Hieros. in Eus. H. #. vi. 11. 6; pseudo-Petr. ad 
Jac., greeting and conclusion ; Afric. ad Orig. (Delarue, i. 10), although in 
the reply (p. 12) Origen uses the Christian form of address. 

4, (P. 43.) Since Luke construes xarnyeioOa: (Acts xxi. 21, 24) and jyos 
(Luke iv. 37) with mepi rivos, there is no reason for construing i. 4 in any 
other way than: rijv dodddecav rdv Adyar rept Sv catnxnOns, nor for under- 
standing the verb otherwise than to mean a report, rumour, which one has 
heard ; cf. Philo, Leg. ad Cat. xxx. The word in itself does not mean formal 
instruction, but the hearing or telling of something which the hearer has not 
previously known (cf. Jos. Vzta, 65). Thus in Acts xviii. 25 the word does 
not, as in Gal. vi. 6; 1 Cor. xiv. 19 (cf. Rom. ii. 18), mean catechetical in- 
struction, since, at that time, Apollos had not received the baptism of the 
Church, nor had he as yet come into any contact with the organised Church, 
but indicates only the fact that he had become acquainted with Christianity 
in a general way. On the other hand, his introduction by Aquila into the 
knowledge of Christianity as held by the Church, is called an dxpiSéorepov 
éxridecOa, Acts xviil. 26. The relation which the communication of Luke 
to Theophilus bore to the latter’s previous knowledge is the same. The 
latter use of the word to‘mean the instruction which had conversion in view, 
and was preparatory to baptism, which is found in 2 Clem. xvii, 1; Acta 
Thecle, xxxix., may have been suggested by passages like Luke i. 4; Acts 
xviii. 25. Hus. Hcloge Proph. (ed. Gaisford, p. 3) construes Luke i. 4 in this 
sense, which is as yet foreign to the N.T. 

5. (P. 44.) Lagarde (Psalterium Hieronymi, 1874, p. 165) felt the state- 
ment of Luke’s reasons for writing in Luke i. 1 to be so awkward that he 
made this the main reason for his hypothesis, that Luke is here imitating 
the preface of the physician Dioscorides (circa, 40 to 70 a.p.) to his work 
mepi vAns larpixns, in which he attempts to show that, notwithstanding the 
numerous writers, ancient and modern, on the same subject, his own work 
is not superfluous, because the work of the former was not complete, while 
the latter drew largely from mere hearsay, not from their own experience 
(ed. Sprengel, i. 1f.). It is, of course, possible that Luke had read this 
work by a contemporary and a member of the same profession. But the 
resemblance between the two dedications is slight. Words like avrowia, 
daxpiBns, and their derivatives are not so distinctive in character as to prove 
familiarity on Luke’s part with Dioscorides in particular. It is, however, 
true that, throughout his entire work, Luke’s language does show the most 
striking resemblance to that of the medical writers from Hippocrates to 
Galen, as has been conclusively shown by Hobart (see n. 28 and § 62, n. 5). 
This is noticeably true in the prologue. Hippocrates.and Galen use, like 
Luke, the thoroughly medical word émyepeiv (found in the N.T. only in 
Luke i, 1; Acts ix. 29, xix. 13) with ypddev, and Galen construes it with 
dvedeiy exactly as in Acts ix. 29 (Hobart, 87, 210). This verb occurs 21 
times in Luke, and elsewhere in the N.T. only thrice (not including the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 83 


use of the derivative dvaipeois in Acts viii. 1). Hobart (87-90, 229, 250 f.) 
cites from Galen not less than 11 instances of airdmrns ‘yevouevos, yiverOar, 
yevéeo@a, 2 instances of axpiBds mapaxodovOctv, and numerous instances of 
Suyynots, both from medical essays and historical works. One of Galen’s 
dedications (ed. Kiihn, xiv. 210, rotrév co rév mepi ris Onpiaxfis ASyov 
axptBas éferdcas dravra, apite Ticwv, orovdaias émoinaa), Hobart 
(251) compares to the prologue of Luke (cf. also Acts i. 1). For the struc- 
ture of the sentence, cf. Jos. Bell. i. procem. 1, ered) . . . dvaypadovow .. . 
mpovbéuny eyo .. . adnynoacba ; § 6 ererdnmep Kal “Iovdaiwy moAXot KrA., but 
especially Acts xv. 24f. ered) neovoapey . . . eSokev nyiv. Christians of a 
later period very often imitated the Prologue of Luke; eg. Athanasius in 
his 39th Easter Epistle (see Epist. fest. 39 in the writer’s edition, Grundriss, 
S. 87. 9 ff.), to a certain extent also Palladius, Hist. Lausiaca (Texts and 
Studies), ed. Butler, p. 9. 1, 10; Epiphan. Mon., ed. Dressel, p. 45, in the life 
of Andrea. 

6. (Pp. 44, 45.) Origen, in Hom.i.in Luc. (Delarue, iii. 933, cf. the Greek 
text GK, i. 627), followed by Eus. H. #. iii. 24.15 and Athan. Epist. fest. 39, 
in misinterpreting éeyeipnoay, understands memdnpodopypévey as a stronger 
form of remorevpévov, but neither of them explains adequately the transfer- 
ence of the word from its association with the person of Luke (remrAnpodpdpyro 
kal ovdev ediora€e) to the things of which he was convinced. This, moreover, 
cannot be explained. With morevecOar, mrapadidocba, émirpémecOa, and 
similar words only the reverse transfer of the passive construction occurs, 
namely, from the thing which is entrusted, delivered, committed, to the person 
to whom something is entrusted, committed, or permitted, who is charged 
with something, etc. (eg. Rom. vi. 17; vol. i. 374, n. 8). Even more im- 
possible is the interpretation first advocated by Lessing (ed. Maltzahn, xi. 
2. 135), which he endeavoured to support by the assumption of a Hebraism. 
According to this view, Luke would have called the facts of the gospel history 
“ Things which have been fulfilled,” because in them O.T. prophecies were 
fulfilled, instead of saying that the prophecies had been fulfilled by these 
facts. With reference to this interpretation it may be remarked : (1) Luke 
does not use Hebraisms in the prologue. (2) When speaking of the fulfil- 
ment of prophecy he uses regularly the usual mAnpody (1. 20, iv. 21, xxiv. 44 ; 
Acts i. 16, iii. 18, xiii. 27), occasionally redeiy (xviii. 31, xxii. 37 ; Acts xiii. 29), 
once mAnobqva (Luke xxi. 22). (3) The thought that the O.T. prophecy is ful- 
filled in the gospel history is not at all fundamental in Luke. (4) Leaving 
out of account the illogical substitution of the facts fulfilling the prophecies 
for the prophecies being fulfilled, it would be difficult for any reader to 
understand the expression standing at the beginning of the book, where as 
yet no mention has been made of prophetic prediction, while to a Gentile 
like Theophilus it would be entirely unintelligible. If it is impossible to 
construe the verb wAnpodopety with a personal object (or mAnpopopeicba 
with a personal subject, Rom. iv. 21, xiv. 5; Col. iv. 12; Eccles. viii. 11; 
Berl. dgypt. Urk. No. 665, whence the word sAnpodopia), the only other con- 
struction possible is rAnpodopeiy with an impersonal object, the same as in 
2 Tim. iv. 5 (=Acts xii. 25, xiv. 26); 2 Tim. iv. 17 (=Col. i. 25; Rom. 
xv. 19); also Herm. Mand. ix. 2. It is to be taken as a rhetorical synonym 
for z\npoov (Luke vii, 1, “after he had finished speaking”; Acts xiii. 25, 


84 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xix. 21; 2 Cor. x. 6; Rev. iii. 2). Luke is fond of such formations, eg. 
rereohopeiv, Luke viii. 14; rporoopeiv, Acts xiii. 18; evpopeiv, Luke xii. 16 
(used only by Luke) ; xaprodopeiv, Luke viii. 15. Used in this connection, 
m\npopopeiv, like mAnpodv, always means “to carry through to the end,” 
“to bring to an end,” not as Wuttig affirms (Das joh. Hv. und seine 
Abfassungszett, 1897, S. 60), “to make complete” in the sense of “to 
supplement.” Wuttig introduces a manifest change in the sense when he 
substitutes (S. 61) the meaning “to complete by the addition of a supple- 
ment”; for, while the object of rAnpotv or mAnpodpopeiy may be the things 
incomplete without this act or transaction (service, vocation, life, discourse, 
preaching of the gospel, and the like), it can never be these things, words, 
acts, etc., which are added to those already existent in order to make them 
complete. Wuttig’s desire in this way to derive the idea that the traditions 
which Luke and the szoAAoi worked over into literary form were “‘added as 
a supplement to complete” the facts which had already been earlier reduced 
to literary form in the Fourth Gospel, is impossible of fulfilment; for it 
could never be said of past events which are here spoken of as the object 
of literary work on the part of many, and indirectly of Luke, that they were 
added as a supplement to the already existing Gospel of the eye-witnesses 
or of one eye-witness ; but only of the oral accounts concerning these events 
by the eye-witnesses and the written records made by their disciples. But 
Luke says nothing about an existing written Gospel of the eye-witnesses, nor 
of its completion by oral accounts of the same witnesses and by the writings 
of the woAdoi. : 

7. (P. 46.) The adverbial dm’ dpyjs must be taken with the yevopyevor 
which concludes the characterisation of the original witnesses. It is likewise 
impossible to construe the phrase with airémra: alone and not also with 
Umnpérat, 

8. (P. 48.) There is nothing in the words rapadidévac and mapddoois 
themselves which determines whether the communication is in oral or written 
form. It isthe function of history to transmit facts to posterity (cf. Polyb. 
ii. 35. 5, eis pununy dye cal rapddocy rots ereywvopévais). Concerning the 
historian Jos. remarks (c. Apion, i. 10), det roy GAAos mapadoow mpdéewv 
dAnOuvadv Umiryxvovpevoy adiroy éricracba Tadra mporepoy axpiBas, 7 mapnKoNov- 
Onkdra Tois yeyovsow 7) mapa Tay ciddrav muvGavopevov; cf. Kus. H. EZ. ii. 
25.2; Dioskor. Mat. Med. in the prefaces to books ii. iii. iv.; in Book v. he 
uses instead dmoduddva. Hence mapadiOdvat (Acts vi. 14) as well as Siddvar 
(John i. 17, vii. 19) can be used of the giving of the law by Moses, who is 
regarded as the author of the written Law (Luke xx. 28; John v. 45-47; 
Rom. x. 5). To what has been said above (p. 48) in the light of the context 
of the prologue the following remarks may be added : (1) In Jewish usage 
there is a contrast between the written law and mapadidovat, rapddoais, teach- 
ings and regulations transmitted orally (Matt. xv. 2, 3,6; Mark vii. 3-13; 
Gal. i. 14; Col. ii. 8, 22). Such tradition is “heard” (Matt. v. 21; John 
xii. 34). (2) Moreover, where the word is used of apostolic teaching and 
advice, this is always oral (1 Cor. xi. 2, 28, xv. 3; Rom. vi.17; 2 Thess. iii. 6 ; 
vol. ii. 372f., 384), where it is not expressly added that this is given in 
written form (2 Thess. ii. 15). (3) Quite apart from the dogmatic contrast 
between Holy Scripture and the less thoroughly authenticated tradition, the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 85 


idea suggested by mapadiddva is always so entirely that of an oral com- 
munication, that Clement, eg. in Hclog. Proph. 27, could write: od« éypagov 
dé of rpeaBurepor pyre dmacyorciv Bovdrduevor rHv bidacKkarikny THs mapaddcews 
ppovrida rH wept To ypade GAAn Hpovrid., pyde pay Krr. 

9. (P. 50.) The mistaken interpretation of mapnxodovOnxdre racw by 
early writers (above, p. 6f.), which made Luke a disciple in companionship 
with all the apostles, requires no refutation. Equally impossible is the inter- 
pretation which makes Luke an active witness of all the events which he is 
about to set forth, although this is linguistically possible, when mpdaypaor is 
supplied with the correct addition (cf. Jos. c. Apion, ii. 10, see n. 8; or 
what Philo, de Decal. xviii., says about the false witness, that he speaks as 
mapnkodovOnkas dmaow). This would make Luke an eye-witness from the 
beginning, which he emphatically declares not to have been the case. 
Further, mapaxo\ovdciy means to pursue and follow with the critical and 
apprehending intelligence (Epict. Dizss. 1. 5. 5, vi. 12, 18, ix. 4, xxvi. 13 and 
14), also with the purpose of historical investigation and exposition (Polyb. i. 
13. 7, iii. 32.2). This is the only meaning which suits dkpiBds. By pera 
maons axpiBelas Trois nuerépos ypdupaor mapakodovbety, Josephus, c. Apion, i. 238, 
means an intelligent study of the O.T. Scriptures. If, when Luke expressed 
his purpose with reference to Theophilus, his plan had included the in- 
vestigations as well as the statement of the results, he would have written 
mapaxodovOnoavrt or -cavta; cf. Acts xv. 25. 

10. (Pp. 53, 54,58.) Of the Fathers, Augustine in particular (Cons. Evv. iv. 
8. 9) claims that the prologue has reference to both of Luke’s books. Among 
the arguments urged against this position the most incomprehensible is that 
Acts would not then begin with another address to Theophilus, which was 
necessary in order to co-ordinate the beginnings of the two books. This is 
practically the position of Overbeck, Introduction to the revision of de 
Wette’s Komm. zur AG, p.xxiA. (1) Acts i. 1 does not contain a second 
prologue, much less an independent prologue, but simply a reference to the 
first part of the author’s work, which serves to connect the second book with 
the first. (2) It is indeed the rule at the beginning of the successive books of 
a large work to insert a short reference to the dedication of the first book, or 
a new prologue, without the prologue of the first book thereby ceasing to be 
the introduction to the entire work. Examples from the years between 60 
and 200 are Dioscorides, Materia Medica, libri i-v.; Jos. c. Apion, i. and 
ii.; Artemidor. Interpretation of Dreams [ Ovetpoxpirixd], i.-iii., dedicated to a 
different person than are iv.-v.; Iren.i-v. Very frequently an address is 
also found at the conclusion of separate books or of the entire work, Diose. v. 
p. 828; Jos. c. Apion, ii. 41; Artemid. i. 82, iii. 66, iv. 84; Iren. i. 31. 3, iv. 
14. 4; cf. also the present writer’s “Studien zu Justin,” Z/KG, viii. 45f. (3) 
Luke does not say, Luke i. 1, that he has set forth the gospel history, éy 
erép@ (BiBrio, cvyypaypari, or perhaps Adyw) or €y erépos, but he calls the 
Gospel 6 rparos Adyos, to which Acts is added as 6 detrepos Adyos. Cf. Birt, 
Das antike Buchwesen, S. 28: “A large work is composed of a number of 
Aédyou.” Of course, it is possible that each one of a number of independent 
writings might be called a Adyos, but such independent writings could not be 
enumerated and called “the first book” and the “second book.” Whether or 
not, when he wrote Luke i, 1-4, Luke knew that the working out of his plan 


86 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW 'TESTAMENT 


would require a work of several parts, certainly when he wrote Acts i. 1 he 
was aware that his plan had been only partially carried out, and therefore at 
this point he added what followed as a second part of a larger work. He 
betrays this same consciousness where he gives as the subject of the first book, 
mepi mdvrov oy ipEaro 6 Inoods waeiv re kai Siddoxew. This a fourth proof 
(4) of the scope of the prologue. On the basis simply of single passages, like 
Acts ix. 4, or in view of the tendency to consider all gospel preaching as the 
gospel of Christ and the word of the Lord (vol. ii. 377), it would be wrong to 
interpret this phrase to mean that Jesus was the actual subject of all that the 
Apostles did and suffered and taught. On the other hand, the use of #pgaro 
in Acts is not to be considered entirely purposeless, especially in this passage 
where Luke is speaking thoughtfully in his capacity as an author. All that 
Jesus did and said, as set forth in the Gospel, is only the beginning of a 
wider activity (cf. Heb. ii.3). This #péaro stands in contrast to the memAn- 
poopnpéva mpdypara of Luke i. 1, which is intended to cover the subject of 
all Luke’s literary work. In this way the proofs derived from Acts i. 1 con- 
nect themselves naturally with those derived from the preface to the Gospel 
(above, p. 53 f.). 

11. (P. 55.) Xenophon in the Anabasis, like Cesar in the Gallic War 
and Matthew in his Gospel, always speaks of himself in the third person 
(Anab. i. 8. 15, ii. 5. 40, iii, 1. 4, 10,47. The only paragraph in which a 
“we” occurs, vii. 8. 25, is regarded as spurious). In the Memorabilia, on the 
other hand, the author’s “I” occurs from the beginning (i. 1. 1, 3. 1, 4. 2). 
But in the account of a-dialogue in which he took part, 1. 3, 8-18, he uses 
Zevopov. ‘Thucydides uses his name from the outset, employing the personal 
pronoun ; so always in speaking of himself in the capacity of a narrator and 
of the source of his knowledge of the events which he records (i. 20, 1, 22. 1, 
ii. 48. 3, v. 26. 4). But when referring to himself as a general, he uses 
consistently the third person, only indicating the identity of the general 
with the author of the book at the first introduction of the name (iv. 104. 4). 
Polybius is familiar with the two forms, but does not maintain the distinc- 
tion strictly. Besides “1” he frequently uses an equivalent “we” (i.1. 1, 3f., 
ii. 40. 5, il. 5. 8, 48. 12); sometimes he uses “I” when speaking of himself as 
one of the actors (xxxix. 16); also remarks about his intentional change of 
“ Polybius” to “I” or “we” (xxxvii. 1f.). In the preface of the Jewish War, 
§ 1, Josephus says, “I, Josephus, the son of Matthias, a priest of Jerusalem.” 
And universally, in speaking of himself as an author, he uses “1” or “we” 
(Bell. v, 4. 1,5. 4, 5. 7, vii. 11.5; Ant. i. procem.; x. 11. 7, xii. 5,2, xvi. 7. 1). 
But in the same work, when speaking of himself as an actor in the history, he 
introduces himself impersonally as “ Josephus,” first in ii. 20. 4, and regularly 
from that point onward. It is only in the autobiography that he employs 
“J” throughout without adding the name. On the other hand, Porphyrius 
in the Vita Plotini writes, cc. iv.-vi., ¢yo Moppipios, evod Mopdupiov, mpoo- 
prOov 61. For the imitations of Luke’s “we” see n. 17. 

12. (P. 55.) In Acts xvi. 17, according to recension 8 also in xvi. 10, 
“we” is found where Paul is expressly excepted ; therefore the “we” in- 
cludes Silas, who has been with Paul since xv. 40, and Timothy, introduced 
into the narrative in xvi. 1-3. That the unnamed person designated by “I” 
and included in the “we” cannot be identified with Silas or Timothy, who 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 87 


are mentioned by name, is self-evident. That it was not Silas is clear from 
the following combinations: ‘ Paul and us” (xvi. 17), “Paul” (xvi. 18), 
“Paul and Silas” (xvi. 19). In both recensions (above, p. 31, n. 9) Timothy 
is excluded by xx. 4-6. He is one of those who on the journey to Troas 
preceded Paul and those associated with him who are included in the 
“ce we.” 

13. (P. 56.) Concerning the text of Acts xx. 3 ff., see above, p. 31, n. 9, 
and vol. i. 209f. According to this passage, the companions of Paul’s journey 
mentioned, with the exception of Sopatros who accompanied him from 
Corinth, and the writer of the narrative who found him at Philippi, went on 
ahead from Macedonia to Troas before the Passover. But too much is not to 
be inferred from the absence of the “we.” In narratives where Paul alone, 
or Paul and Silas, are represented as actors or sufferers (xvi. 18-40), the “ we” 
is omitted without the absence of the narrator or of Timothy being thereby 
implied. According to xxi. 18, the narrator was in the party that met James ; 
but in what follows there is no occasion to use the “we” again. The same is 
true of xx. 16-38, where the account concerns only Paul’s decision and a 
transaction between himself and the Ephesian elders. ‘ We” might have 
been used in xx. 36 (jyiv instead of avrois), although it is possible, but not 
definitely proved by the recurrence of the “we” in xxi. 1, that part of Paul’s 
company—among them the narrator—remained on shipboard while Paul and 
his other companions went on shore. Since the elders accompanied Paul to 
the ship (in a boat), and certainly went on board (xx. 38), those of the com- 
pany who remained on the ship could have participated in the leave-taking of 
the elders (xxi. 1). Irenzus’ statement in iii. 14. 1 (@K, ii. 54, A. 2), accord- 
ing to which Luke accompanied the apostle from Antioch, apparently im- 
mediately after the separation between Paul and Barnabas, is not absolutely 
precluded by the absence of “we” in the very sketchy narrative of xv. 40- 
xvi. 8. But Luke may have followed Paul from Antioch to Troas as 
Agathopus did Ignatius (Ign. Philadel. xi.; Smyrn.x.; cf. the present writer’s 
work on Ignatius, 263 f.). 

14. (P. 58.) Quite independently of the question concerning the correct- 
ness of the text in Luke xxiv. 51, and of the harmonistic difficulties suggested 
by a comparison of Luke xxiv. 44-53 and Acts i. 1-14, it is shown by Actsi. 2 
that the author is conscious of having already given an account of the dvddnyus 
in Luke xxiv. 51. 

15. (P. 59.) Concerning the title mpdées trav droordédov see above, 
p. 3,n. 1. Even in the Coptic and Syriac versions the Greek word is 
adopted into the text, although in the latter version a Syriac equivalent is 
also used (GK, i. 377. ; for other variants, iil. 52, A.2). The use of mpaés in 
a legal sense as a translation of Actio = “suit, proceedings of a court, synod,” 
etc., is out of the question, also the use of actum, acta, which when used by the 
Greeks is left untranslated (Just. Apol. i. 35, 48 ; Acta Thecle, xxxviii.). It 
can mean only historical facts as in Polybius (cf. Raphelii Annot. in N.T., ed. 
Hemsterhuis, 1747, ii. 2). The present writer is not familiar with any other 
ancient historical work in the title of which the word is used. The titles of 
the apocryphal mpagées TavAov, Iérpov xr. are imitations of the canonical 
Acts (see n. 17). On the other hand, one is easily reminded of the late 
Hebrew swyo (Mishnah, Meg. iv. 8; Chag. ii, 1; also in the title of the 


88 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Aramaic Book of Tobit, ed. Neubauer, 1878, pp. 3, 17). Dependence upon 
this usage would argue for the very early date of the title of Acts. 

16. (P. 61.) Josephus writes at the beginning of the second and last book 
contra Apion, dia pév odv rod mporépov B3diov krA. Philo says in Quod omn. 
probus, liber i., speaking of a companion work now lost, 6 peév rpdrepos Adyos 
AY jpiv, & Geddore, mepi rou krA. Also Vita Mos. ii. 1, which is correct, since 
as yet a third book was not in view. ‘This is supplementary (ili. 1, rpirov de 
mpooarodoréov). The genuine Euthalius (Zacagni, 410) writes in the same 
way of Luke: dvo0 BiBdouvs ovveypdwaro, piay pev Kal mporépay tyv Tov 
evayyeAlov, Sevrépay S€ rdvtnv xtdA. So Origen regularly in quotations from 
1 Cor., 1 Tim., etc., on Matt. tom. xiv. 22, xv. 27, xvii. 29. The careless use of 
mpatos for mpdrepos is not once to be found in Luke’s writings, where he 
could have been dependent on his sources. Acts xii. 10 “a first watch and a 
second watch” is not a case in point, nor is the adverbial rpérov in Luke xiv. 
28, 31. Bunsen’s Anal. Antenic. i. 130f., calls attention to the use of mparoyv, 
Acts i. 1, as distinguished from mpérepov. 

17. (P. 61.) The not ungifted author of the Acts of John and the Acts of 
Peter, whom we now know to have been a member of one branch of the 
Valentinian School, introduces himself in the former work by a “we,” as 
Luke does in Acts, making himself a witness of the history of John which he 
fabricates. He also uses occasionally an “I,” and once at least the name 
Leucius Charinus ; cf. the present writer’s Acta Jo. Ixviii., Ixx., xevii.; GK, ii. 
860. In his Acts of Peter the same author clearly imitates and borrows from 
Acts (GK, ii. 854f.). It is not likely that the author meant to identify him- 
self with the Lucius in Acts xiii. 1, still less with Luke. Equally im- 
probable is the conjecture of James (Apocr. Anecd. ii. p. xi), that the author of 
the Muratorian fragment regarded the stories of Leucius as a work of Luke, 
implying by the use of semote, line 37, that this work was a non-canonical, 
unpublished writing by the author of the canonical Acts. The Catholic 
author of the Acts of Paul, and, as we now know, of the Acts of Thecle, which 
are a part of it, has followed Acts even more closely than has Leucius. The 
much later biographer of the Apostle John, Prochorus, took his name from 
Acts vi. 5, and derived much of his material from this source (Acta Jo. liv.). 

18. (P. 64.) In Luke iv. 44 the reading rijs “Iovdaias is very strongly 
attested both as to age and currency by NBCLQ (fifth century) R (sixth 
century), Ss S*, copt. and a large number of cursives, so that it is not to be 
compared with the ris "Iovdalas in i. 26, for which there is only one witness 
(x*). Furthermore, the entire context after iv. 14 suggests no objection to 
Tadcdaias, whereas Iovdaias would necessarily have raised questions. More- 
over, the variants réy “Iovdaiwy (cf. vii. 3), rois Iovdaios (the Jewish popula- 
tion of Galilee in contrast to numerous persons in this country who were not 
Jews) and avréy (according to iv. 15), which have only a single MS. in their 
support, prove that there stood here originally a reading which created 
difficulty, namely, ris “Iovdaias. Unfortunately Marcion’s text has not come 
down to us (GK, ii. 478). But, according to a statement of an anonymous 
Syrian writer, Marcion made his Christ appear first between Jerusalem and 
Jericho (Mus. Brit. Add. 17215, fol. 30; cf. Academy, 1893, October 21); and 
although it has not yet been possible to bring this statement into agreement 
with that of Tertullian (TAL, 1896, col. 19), it argues in favour of the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 89 


assumption that Marcion, who constructed the beginning of his Gospel in the 
most arbitrary fashion out of Luke iii. 1, iv. 31-35 (or 39%), iv. 16-43 (or 
44%), found “Iovdaias in this passage. If Luke wrote the word, he certainly did 
not employ it in the narrower sense, implying complete exclusion of Galilee 
(v. 17, xxiv. 8), but in the broader sense according to which it includes 
Galilee, asin i. 5, vi. 17, xxiii. 5; Acts x. 37 (cf. vol. i. 186). This is in 
keeping with the context ; for after the mention of Galilee in general (iv. 14) 
and of Nazareth (iv. 16-30), and of the “Galilean city, Capernaum” (iv. 
31-42), in particular, rais érépas médeow (iv. 43), without any modifying 
words, means all the other cities in Jesus’ sphere of labour, exclusive of those 
already mentioned. Among these not the least important was Jerusalem 
Gi. 38, xiii. 33f.), but all the other Jewish cities of the Holy Land are 
included (cf. Matt. x. 23). It is, therefore, possible that in v. 12 a city in 
South Palestine is meant, as Tatian assumed,—possibly influenced by the 
original text of Luke iv. 44 (Forsch. 1. 251f.; GK, 11. 545), just as in x. 38 
a village near Jerusalem is meant, although it is not expressly said that this 
is the location. 

19. (P. 66.) In ix. 18-x. 42 we seem to have a series of events closely 
connected in time and place. The temporal connection is directly indicated 
in ix, 28, 37, x. 1, 21, also to some extent in x. 17, and possible in x. 25 by 
kai tOov. The way is prepared for the journey to Jerusalem, ix. 51, by ix. 22, 
31. Evidently in ix. 57 the same zopeveo@a is referred to as in ix. 56. This 
seems also to be the case in x. 1, 38. If it could be assumed that Luke knew 
Cesarea Philippi to be the scene of what is narrated in ix. 18-27 (Mark viii. 
27-38), and that he knew the location of the village referred to in x. 38 
(John xi. 1, 18), and its name, Bethany, we would have here a journey from 
the extreme northern part of Palestine to Jerusalem, and it would be natural 
. to assume that the material of the parable in x. 30 ff. was suggested by Jesus’ 
journey through Jericho to Bethany and Jerusalem. But Luke does not make 
such combinations. He mentions neither Cesarea nor Bethany ; he would 
not have mentioned the fact that the city in ix. 52 was Samaritan if it were 
not necessary for understanding what took place. This is true also of the 
statement that Jerusalem was the goal of His journey, as is shown by a com- 
parison of ix. 51 with ix. 53. There must have been an interval of a con- 
siderable number of days between x. 1-16 and x. 17, and nothing is said of 
Jesus’ progress. The dvéorn, x. 25, seems to presuppose that Jesus was 
surrounded by a crowd of seated listeners (Mark iii. 34), although immediately 
before Jesus is represented as being alone with His disciples (Luke x. 23). 
Throughout the book there is no external connection between events. On 
the other hand, the logical connection is very clear—particularly between 
ix. 49 f. and ix. 54-56. Everything from ix. 22 onward is designed to show 
how the disciples—even those of them who were most trusted—needed to be 
brought, contrary to their natural inclinations, to the state of mind necessary 
for witnessing the sufferings and death of their Master. The conclusion of 
this train of thought is reached at x. 24, and at this point we have the 
beginning of a new series of events which likewise are related logically, 
not locally or in respect of time. If in x. 38 we are in the vicinity of 
Jerusalem, the supposed account of the journey to Jerusalem can go no 
farther. In xiii. 1, Jesus is certainly not in Jerusalem, and it is not until 


g0 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xiii. 22-35 that we find Him on His way hither, and then He seems to be at a 
considerable distance away, in the domain of Herod Antipas (xiii. 31-33), 1.¢. 
either in Galilee or Perea. An examination of xiii. 33-35 shows that 
Jerusalem is mentioned in xiii. 22, not in order to begin or to continue the 
account of a journey, but in order to make intelligible a word of Jesus’ spoken 
at this particular time (xiii. 31). In xiv. 1-xvii. 10 the references to time 
and place are vague, as is also the reference to a journey in xiv. 25. Again, 
in xvii. 11 the place is mentioned only in order to make clear the passage 
xvii. 12-19. It is not until xviii. 31, 35, xix. 1, 11, 28, 41, 45 that we have a 
continuous development of the course of events. Nevertheless, it is possible 
that we have here scattered statements concerning a journey to Jerusalem, or, 
as we may say in view of ix. 51, the last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem. 
Since quarters were refused Jesus in a Samaritan city (ix. 52), we may infer 
that the village in ix. 56 was Jewish, and assume that Jesus gave up his 
intention to go to Jerusalem through Samaria, taking instead the route 
through Perea (Mark x. 1; Matt. xix. 1; vol. ii. 589, n. 4). With this 
xvii. 11 may be connected. That the reference in this passage is not to a 


journey through the midst of Samaria and Galilee is self-evident, because, in 


this case, it would necessarily be a journey from Judea to the northern 
boundary of Galilee, because of the order in which the countries are men- 
tioned, and because the readings dd péons or dua ris, by which this meaning 
is expressed, are practically unsupported. Probably the most original reading 
is pécov, without a preposition (D, cf. viii. 7, x. 3). This was replaced by 
avapéoov (Ferrar group), which was not a bad conjecture, by dua péoov (AX, 
ete.), which, on the other hand, was worse, and by dia pécov (NBL), which is 
very bad. Jesus travelled along the border between Samaria and Galilee 
naturally from west to east with the intention in the neighbourhood of 
Scythopolis of crossing the Jordan into Perea, and thence to journey to 
Jerusalem. So it happened that in one of the border villages nine Jewish 
and one Samaritan leper met Jesus. Here could have followed what is 
recorded in xiii. 22-35, if these events occurred in Perea (see above), although 
Luke records them at an earlier point in the narrative. In xviii. 31, 35, 
xix. 11, 28, 41-45 we follow Jesus through Jericho to the Temple in Jerusalem 
without again being carried back in time or place. 

20. (P. 68.) Of the proper names that are found in Matt. or Mark only 
Archelaus (Matt. ii. 22), Bartimeeus (Mark x. 46), and the names of Jesus’ 
brothers are lacking in Luke. On the other hand, omitting the genealogy 
and O.T. names, the following are peculiar to Luke : Zacharias and Elisabeth, 
with very explicit statements about them, i. 5, cf. 36; Augustus and 
Quirinius, ii. 1, 2; Simeon and Anna, with explicit statements regarding 
them, ii. 25, 36 ; Tiberius and Lysanius, iii, 1 ; Annas, iii. 2, Acts iv. 6 (also 
John xviii. 18); Simon the Pharisee, vii. 40; Joanna and Chuza, viii. 3, cf. 
xxiv. 10; Susanna, viii. 3; Mary and Martha, x. 39 (also John xi.) ; Zacchaus, 
xix. 1; Cleopas, xxiv. 18. A proper name is found even in one of the 
parables (xvi. 20). It will also be observed that in Acts a number of persons 
are mentioned who play only a subordinate réle in the narrative, or none at 
all, and who, if we may judge from analogy, would not have been mentioned 
in Matt. or Mark ; ¢g. in iv. 6, v. 1, vi. 5 (altogether seven persons, only two 
of whom are mentioned again); ix, 10, 11, 33, 36, x. 1, 32 (Peter’s host) ; 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 9 


xi. 28, cf. xxi. 10, xii. 12, 13 (the maid); xii. 20, xiii. 1 (three unknown 
persons with very explicit statements about them, still more in text B, see 
above, p.28f., n. 6); xiii. 6-8, xvii. 6, xviii. 7, 8, 17, xix. 9, 14, 22, 24, 29, 33, 
xx. 4,9, xxi. 16, xxiv. 1, 24, xxvii. 1, xxviii. 7. 

21. (P. 69.) In some of the passages of Luke’s narrative, where he calls 
Jesus 6 xvpios, the text is uncertain as regards this particular point. The 
present writer regards the following passages as genuine : vii. 13 (not vii. 31) ; 
x. 1, xi. 39, xii. 42, xiii. 15, xvii. 5, 6, xvill. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 31, 61 (twice) ; 
(xxiv. 3%); altogether twelve or thirteen times. In John it is found only 
four times (iv. 1, vi. 23, xi. 2, xx. 20). But in the only passage really com- 
parable with it (John iv. 1), possibly 6 "Incots is the correct reading. In 
xx, 20 the author speaks from the point of view of the disciples. In vi. 23, 
xi. 2 we have the evangelist’s own words, which have no connection with the 
narrative. This usage is not found in Matt. or Mark. On Mark xvi. 19 see 
vol. ii. 476. With reference to the reticence of Luke in the account of the 
Last Supper, cf. the present writer’s essay: Brod und Wein im Abendmahl, 
1892, S. 148, 

22.(P. 70.) The Israelitish tone is strongly marked in chs, i.-ii. (i. 6, 32 f., 
54f., 68-79, ii. 4, 11, 21-24, 25, 31f., 37f., 41f.). The man Jesus, however, 
is represented as loving His people (xili. 16, xix. 9), and as, therefore, very 
deeply pained both by their sins and misfortune (x. 31 ff., xiii. 34, xvii. 18, 
xix. 41-44, xxiii. 28-31). He acknowledges not only the prophetic and 
doctrinal significance of the O.T. (iv. 4-12, 17-21, x. 25-28, xiii. 28, xvi. 16, 
29-31, xviii. 19f., xx. 37, 41-44, xxi. 37, xxiv. 27, 44-46), but also the 
inviolability of the law (xvi. 17). He Himself was submissive to the law to” 
which as a child He was made subject (ii. 21-24), and remained loyal to the 
religious customs (iv. 16, 31, xxii. 7-16) under which He was brought up 
(ii. 41f.). He made no objection even to the painfully literal fulfilment of 
the law by the Pharisees, so long as they kept also the fundamental moral 
law (xi. 42, cf. v. 34 ff.). In relation to the Sabbath He takes the same liberal- 
conservative attitude as in the other Gospels (vi. 1-11, xiii. 10-17, xiv. 1-6) ; 
see vol. ii. 585 ff. His disciples also live according to the law (xxiii. 56). 
His Church retains its connection with the Temple, and is full of zeal for the 
law (xxiv. 53; Acts ii. 46, v. 12, 42, xxi. 20). The significance of Israel is 
not destroyed by the rejection of the Messiah and of the apostolic preaching. 
The times of the Gentiles shall pass away (Luke xxi. 24), The nation which 
it was Jesus’ first mission to redeem (1. 54-68-79, ii. 34-38, xxiv. 21; Acts 
ii. 39, iii. 25) shall finally acknowledge and enthrone Him (xiii. 35, xxii. 30 ; 
Acts iii. 20f.). No man can know, nor is any man privileged to know, the 
time (Acts i. 6f.). But the fact is certain. 

23. (P. 72.) Cf. E. Curtius, SBAW, 1898, S. 928f., on Phil. iv. 8, and 
similar statements of Paul. Cf. also what Herder says (Vom Erldser der 
Menschen, 1796, S. 218): ‘He (Luke) might be called the evangelist of 
Philanthropy, if this word had not been desecrated. Such a Gospel is in 
keeping with the character of a man who had made numerous journeys 
among the Greeks and Romans with Paul, and who dedicated his writings 
to a Theophilus.” 

24, (P.'74.) With regard to the alleged Ebionitic doctrine of the meri- 
torious, or God-pleasing character of voluntary poverty, see vol. i. 147f, 


92 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


There is ne reason why anyone should have been misled, as has repeatedly 
been the case, by Origen’s scholastic play on words (Prine. iv. 22; ¢. Cels. i. 
1; cf. Eus. H. £. iii. 27. 6) into the very remarkable opinion that the Ebionites 
were so called because of the poverty of their thought, or that they called 
themselves by this name because of their extreme poverty (Epiph. Her. 
350.6 Ay 

25. (P. 77.) No other Gospel emphasises so strongly the joy, the 
pleasure, the enthusiastic admiration occasioned by Jesus : 11. 10, 20, 47, 52, 
1Vey 22seV LO. Vill, ob, ix. 43, X15 27, xi. 17, xvilg 15) xvilie4 osx 
Olt, 48,.XX15 38, Xxiil So, xxiv. 52; cf. 1. 14, 4641., 68; i. 29. x AV xv 
7, 10, 28, 32. Only a few of these passages have parallels in the other 
Gospels. 

26. (P. 77.) Instead of (nyrwrns, Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13, Matt. x. 4, and 
Mark iii. 18, we find the Hebrew term. Josephus speaks of them as a party 
in the account which he gives of their origin, but mentions no name (Bell. 
ii. 8.1; Ant. xviii. 1. 1 and 6); elsewhere he calls them (yAorai (Bell. iv. 5. 
1,6. 1). For the 9 doypapyn and daroypdperOa of Luke, Jos. uses various 
terms ; droripay, aroripacba, drodidocba, ai drotynoes, also ai droypadar, 
Ant. xvii. 13. 5, xvii. 1. 1, 2. 1, Bell. vii. 8. 1, but never 7 éroypagn. 

27. (P. 78.) The number 70 or (according to BD, Tatian, ancient Syriac 
and Latin versions, see Forsch. i. 148) 72 disciples in x. 1 has no more 
connection with the 70 Gentile nations and their languages and angels, as 
the Jews recorded them (Schiirer, ii. 348, iii, 198 [Eng. trans. 11. i. 344, 
iii. 64]), than it does with the 70 members of the Sanhedrin or the 70 trans- 
Jators of the O.T. or any other number 70. The 70 were not sent to the 
Gentiles, and there is nothing to indicate that Luke meant it to be taken in 
this symbolical sense. Luke and Theophilus were not Jews, and could not 
have expressed or understood such a thought simply by the use of the 
number 70. On the other hand, the contrast between the 70 and the 12 
(Luke ix. 1) is clearly expressed, and, as shown above (p. 78), the way was 
prepared by ix. 49f., 60 (cf. also viii. 39), for the transfer of the preaching 
office to those who were not apostles. According to an ancient tradition, 
accepted as true by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 25), and probably 
derived from the Gospel of Philip, it was Philip who was addressed in Luke 
ix. 60; and since the person here spoken to must be one who was not an 
apostle, the evangelist Philip must be meant (cf. Forsch. vi. 26. 158 f.). 

28. (P. 79.) Concerning the linguistic unity of Luke’s work, cf. ZELLER, 
S. 415-425, 442-446, 498 ff.; LuxmBuscu, Komposition wnd Entstehung der 
AG, 1854, 8. 37-81; Kiosrermann, Vind. Lucane seu de ttinerit in libro 
actorum asservate auctore, 1866, pp. 46-63 ; Hopart, The Medical Language of 
St. Luke, a proof from internal evidence that the Gospel according to St. 
Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same person, and that 
the writer was a medical man, Dublin, 1882; Voaut, Zur Characteristik des 
Lucas nach Sprache und Stil, eine philologische Laienstudie, 2te Aufl, 1899. 
For details see above, pp. 28f., nn. 6,7; 37f,n,18; 82f.,. nn. 4-6; below, 
§ 61, nn. 10-12, 26; § 62, n. 5. 

29. (P. 79.) M. Scunuckmnsurcer (Uber den Zweck der AG, 1841) made 
the first important investigation in the direction indicated by the title. He 
takes no account of the prologue, which he thinks belongs only to the Gospel, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 93 


nor of the dedication to Theophilus, but argues from Acts xviii.xxviii. that 
the purpose of the entire second book, which he thinks was written in Rome 
by Luke the disciple of Paul after the death of the apostle and before the fall 
of Jerusalem, is to give an apologetic portrayal of the apostolic labours of 
Paul in answer to all the accusations and misinterpretations of the Judaisers 
which come to light in the Pauline letters. The principal means by which 
this is accomplished is the constant contrast between Paul and Peter. He 
defends the consistency of this irenic tendency of Luke with his trustworthi- 
ness and familiarity with the facts against the criticism, which was even then 
being made by Schrader and Baur, that in many instances the history was 
deliberately falsified by Luke. Starting with the hypothesis of Schnecken- 
burger, who had only half worked it out, but at the same time developing 
principles that he himself had already laid down, Baur (Paulus?, i. 7-16 ; 
Christentum und Kirche der 3 ersten Jahrh.? S. 50, 125 ff., and in many other 
passages) showed that Acts was a partisan work, dating from about the middle 
of the second century. It is attributed with some hesitancy to Luke, the 
disciple of Paul, who, as a representative of the modified Paulinism of his 
time, recasts in this work the entire history of the Apostolic Church in the 
most arbitrary manner, in order to bring about an adjustment with Jewish 
Christianity, which it is alleged was still powerful at that time, and in order 
to effect a catholic union. This view was so thoroughly worked out by E. 
ZELLER (Die AG nach Inhalt und Ursprung krit. unters. 1854), who dated the 
work between 110 and 1380 (S. 466-481), that Baur felt that this could be 
called simply “the critical view,” in contrast to which any view which 
differed from it essentially was “uncritical.” A similar point of view is 
represented by Overbeck (in the introduction of his revision of de Wette’s 
Komm. zur AG, 1870). However, according to Overbeck, Luke’s purpose 
was not conciliatory in the Tiibingen sense, 7.e. in the sense that it is 
designed primarily for Jewish Christians, but it is apologetic from the point 
of view of Gentile Christianity, which had become estranged from genuine 
Paulinism, and which was practically dominant in the Church in Trajan’s 
time (98-117). Besides the emphasis laid upon a “national anti-Judaism,” 
Overbeck calls special attention to a “secondary, political aim,” namely, to 
show that Christianity is in harmony with the Roman government. From 
this it follows that Acts “could not well have been directed to any one save 
to Gentiles outside the Church” (p. xxxiii). More recently J. Weiss 
(Ober die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der AG, 1897), in opposition 
to one-sided efforts to determine the sources of Acts, and with full recognition 
of Overbeck’s services, has made an investigation with the following result : 
“ Acts is an apology for Christianity to the Gentiles against the charges of the 
Jews; it shows how Judaism was supplanted by Christianity in its world 
mission.” In order to obtain what is correct in the views of Overbeck and 
Weiss, namely, the fact that Acts was designed for Gentile readers, it is not 
necessary to have recourse to highly questionable interpretations and forced 
inferences. It follows as a matter of course from the prologue and the 
dedication of the work to the Gentile, Theophilus (above, pp. 61-80). Of 
works in opposition to the “ tendenz criticism” special mention may be made 
of those by E. Lexesusce (Komposition und Entstehung der AG, 1854); A. 
KLosteERMANN (Vindicte Lucane, 1866); C. Scumtpr (Die AG unter dem 


94 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Hauptgesichtspunkt threr Glaubwiirdighett, i., 1882, unfinished). Still worth 
reading is Hormann’s unpretending essay, “ Das Geschichtswerk des Lucas,” 
Vermischte Aufs., 1878, S. 153-176). 


§61. THE SOURCES USED BY LUKE. 


From the language of the dedication we might infer 
that Luke derived all the material which he used, either 
from his own recollection of what he had experienced, or 
from the oral reports of older Christians, especially of the 
disciples of Jesus. But it is hardly probable that one 
who was conscious that his task was that of an investigator 
and an historian, as Luke shows himself to have been, 
would have confined himself to these sources, and have 
made no use whatever of the large body of literature 
dealing with his subject, of which he himself speaks. 
We should expect, further, that he would have used 
documents where it was possible for him to obtain them ; 
and since it was part’ of his purpose to connect the history 
of Christianity with the history of the outside world, it 
would not be surprising if he consulted some of the 
accounts of contemporary history. 

Taking up this last point, it has been thought possible 
to prove that Luke took numerous facts from the works 
of JosEPHuS, also that he modelled his style after this 
writer (n. 1). The latter is a priort improbable. A 
Greek who could write such a periodic sentence as Luke 
i. 1-4 would not have copied a Jew, who, by his own 
confession, talked more or less of a jargon all his life, 
and who was not able to publish his Greek writings 
without the help of men who were masters of this 
language (n. 2). Dependence of Luke upon Josephus is 
also improbable from chronological reasons. The work 
on the Jewish War appeared in its Greek. form shortly 
before the year 79 (Schiirer, i. 79 [Eng. trans. 1 i. 88]); © 
the Antiquities, in 93 or 94; the Vita, either at the 
same time as an appendix to the Antiquities, or, according 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 95 


to others, not until after 100; and the books contra 
Apion, later than 94. Since the question here does not 
in any way concern the use of the Jewish War alone, 
but quite as much, and even more, the use of the later 
works of Josephus, Luke’s writings, if dependent upon 
Josephus, would have to be dated at the very earliest 
in the year 100. Against this, however, is, first, the 
unanimous tradition which, up to the present time, has 
not been successfully controverted, that the author of 
the Gospel and Acts was Luke, the friend of Paul, and 
the eye-witness in the “we” passages of Acts. If he 
was a member of the Antiochian Church in the year 40, 
though he may have been not more than twenty years 
of age at the time, it is very improbable that he should 
have elaborated as late as the year 100 this great work, 
which certainly does not give the impression of being 
the effort of an aged man, using the recent writings of 
his younger contemporary, Josephus (born 37 a.p.). It ., 
is also unlikely that he would have entertained at this 
late date the purpose of further continuing the work 
(above, p. 56ff.). Inthe second place, quite aside from 
the confirmation which the tradition regarding the author 
receives from Luke’s writings themselves, strong proof is 
to be found in them that they could not well have been 
written later than 80 (§ 62). This makes the use even 
of the earliest writings of Josephus improbable, while 
employment of his later works is entirely out of the 
question ; and, if striking resemblances should be found 
to exist between the two writings, it must have been 
Josephus who used Luke’s work, which appeared some ten 
or twenty years before the publication of the Antiquities, 
and not the reverse. 

Dependence of the Christian upon the Jewish historian 
would most naturally betray itself in statements regarding 
political conditions. But the very opposite is what we 
actually find. Both Luke (ii. 1-3; Acts v. 37) and 


96 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Josephus know of a “taxing” carried out in Palestine 
at the beginning of our era, which was the first and, 
for a long time, the only one-of its kind, and to which 
was due the bloody insurrection of Judas the Galilean 
(n. 3). But here the resemblance ends. Luke refers the 
taxing to a decree of Augustus, in which it was com- 
manded that the whole world—naturally the world under 
the Roman dominion—should be taxed. In the Jewish 
War and the passages of the Antiquities where the 
matter is treated in detail, Josephus speaks only of an 
order which covered the territory of Archelaus, which 
did not include even the whole of Palestine (Ant. xvii. 
ieteol ; Bell, vil. 8: Usoek:i 8. 4 17.8). se ieee 
passage only, where the matter is mentioned incidentally 
(Ant. xvii. 13. 5), it is made to cover Syria. This, how- 
ever, is connected with an idea which first appears in the 
Antiquities. In the Jewish War, Quirinius nowhere 
appears as the governor of Syria, but is a high official, 
who, after the deposition of Archelaus, was sent thither 
with the extraordinary commission to organise the 
territory of Archelaus, which was now taken directly 
under Roman control. On the other hand, in the 
passages where Quirinius is mentioned in the Antiqurties, 
the very inaccurate, or rather simply erroneous, claim is 
twice made, that the territory of Archelaus was at this 
time added to the province of Syria (xvii. 18. 5, xviii. 1. 1). 
But neither in this passage nor anywhere else does Josephus 
call Quirinius the governor of Syria. The reader of the 
Jewish War would never guess that he had at any time 
occupied this position, nor could it be inferred from the 
unclear hints of the Antiquities, We have, therefore, a 
second statement of Luke’s which is independent of 
Josephus, namely, that the taxing took place while 
Quirinius was governor of Syria. On this point the 
Antiochian, Luke, is better informed than Josephus, since, 
as a matter of fact, P, Sulpicius Quirinius, who was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 97 


consul in the year 12 B.c., was governor of Syria from 
autumn of the year 4 (B.c.) to the year 1 (B.c.). Accord- 
ing to an inscription, the genuineness of which was long 
questioned, but which was proved to be correct by a 
discovery of the year 1880, a certain Q. Aimilius Secundus, 
by order of the royal governor of Syria, Quirinius, had a 
census taken in the Syrian city, Apamea (n. 4). 

A third point in which Luke proves himself to be 
independent of Josephus, and where he shows a know- 
ledge of the facts which is certainly closer to the historical 
truth than Josephus’, is the chronology. The latter 
writer, whose information for the four decades between 
the death of Herod (4 B.c.) and his own birth (37 a.p.) is 
extremely meagre (Schiirer, i. 84 f. [Hng. trans. 1. i. 88 f.]), 
dates both the taxing by Quirinius and the insurrection 
of Judas in the year after the deposition of Archelaus 
(6-7 a.p.). But it is inconceivable that Judas, who was 
a native of Gamala, in Gaulanitis, and who was called 
the ‘“‘Galilean”—not because Galilee was his home, but 
because it was the scene of the insurrection which he led 
(Acts v. 37; Jos. Bell. ii. 8. 1, 17. 8, Ant. xviii. 1. 6)— 
should have raised the banner of revolt in a year when 
there was no political change of any kind in Galilee. 
That Josephus is in error is very clear from the fact that, 
in addition to this insurrection, he tells of still another 
revolt led by one Judas in Galilee, which took place in 
the year of Herod’s death (4 Bc., Bell. 1. 4. 1; Ant. 
xvii. 10. 5), and which is really identical with the one 
already mentioned. His error is further shown by the 
fact that, without any explanation, he repeats again in 
the year 6-7 (a.p.) the short high-priesthood of Joazar, 
who sought to quiet this disturbance, and who held office 
in the year 4 B.c. (cf. on the one hand, Ané. xviii. 6. 4, 
Or, 13. 13° Bell. ii. 1.2; on the other, Ant. xviii. 1. 1, 
2.1). This tendency of Josephus to repeat events is 
quite surpassed by the modern historians, who, in order 

VOL. IIL. 7 


98 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to save Josephus from inaccuracy, assume still a second 
Syrian governorship of Quirinius covering the year 6-7, 
in addition to the historically attested governorship of 
the year (curca 4-1 B.c.); although as a matter of fact 
Josephus does not anywhere say that Quirinius was ever 
governor of Syria. The insurrection of Judas, the rise 
of the party of the Zealots (Luke vi. 15 ; Acts i. 15, v. 37), 
the deposition of the high priest Joazar, who had been 
installed in office a few months before, and the taxing 
under the direction of Quirinius, took place in the first 
year after Herod’s death (March 4-3 B.c.). Josephus, 
who places these events in the year 6—7 A.D., although he 
reproduces them in part in the year 4-3 B.c., has made a 
mistake of a decade, and, in other respects as well, displays 
a serious lack of critical judgment. Even if Luke was 
mistaken, it is certain that he does not copy his errors 
from Josephus, and his chronology is independent of the 
Jewish writer. The reader, who knows from Luke i. 36 
that Jesus’ birth took Bias a few months after that of 
the Baptist, cannot very well assume that the events 
recorded in Luke ii. 1-39 took place later than the reign 
of Herod 1., mentioned in i. 5 (n. 5), especially since no 
conflicting dates are mentioned in i. 1, and while it is 
not until i. 1 that we find a new and thoroughly detailed 
chronological notice. This unavoidable impression is fully 
confirmed by Matt. 1. 1-22, from which we know that, 
according to the tradition of Palestinian Christians in 
60-70, Jesus was born shortly before the death of Herod 1. 
When, therefore, Luke makes the birth of Jesus contem- 
poraneous with the taxing which took place during the 
Syrian governorship of Quirinius (ii. 2), it does not mean 
that, in unconscious contradiction to the Christian tradi- 
tion, he places the birth of Jesus shortly after, instead of — 
shortly before, the death of Herod, but that ie dates the — 
governorship of Quirinius, together with the taxing which — 
took place under his direction and the insurrection of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 99 


Judas, shortly before, instead of shortly after, Herod’s 
death, thus making a mistake of at least several months— 
possibly of from one to two years. For it is certain, not 
only from Josephus, but also from coins, that the governor 
of Syria, during the last year of Herod’s reign and after 
his death—from the autumn of 6 B.c. at the latest until 
the summer of 4 B.c.—was Varus, not Quirinius (Schiirer, 
i. 8322 f. [Eng. trans. 1.1. 351]). In view of the result of 
the discussion of this one example, which at the same 
time gives us an insight into the characteristics of the 
two historians, detailed discussion of the other accounts 
of Luke and Josephus which have been compared may be 
omitted. There is not a single historical notice of Luke, 
whether correct, inaccurate, or auestionable, which can be 
explained on the supposition that he had read Josephus. 
On the other hand, in many instances he shows an 
acquaintance with contemporary events and with more 
or less distinguished persons outside the Church which 
can be shown to be quite independent of Josephus. The 
slaughter of the Galileans in the temple as they were 
offering sacrifices (Luke xii. 1); the estrangement between 
Pilate and Antipas, and their reconciliation (Luke xxiii. 12); 
the names of the distinguished priests, Alexander and 
(if the correct reading be not Jonathan, cf. Jos. Ant. 
xviii. 4. 8) John (Acts iv. 6); the imposing figure of 
Gamaliel (Acts v. 34, xxii. 3), mentioned by Josephus 
only as the father of the younger Gamaliel (Bell. iv. 3. 9; 
Vita, 38, 60); the Samaritan Simon (Acts viii. 9); the 
officers of Herod, Chuza (Luke vii. 3) and Blastus (Acts 
xii. 20, cf. also xii. 1); the chiliarch, Claudius Lysias 
(Acts xxiii. 26); the centurions, Cornelius and Julius 
(Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1); and the orator, Tertullus (xxiv. 1) 
—all these statements and names could not have been 
taken by Luke from Josephus. In the instances where 
their accounts cover the same ground, we find traces of 
independent and variant traditions (n. 6). In the case 


100 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the Antiquities and Vita, which, according to all 
indications, are considerably later than Luke’s work, it 
is more natural to suppose that Josephus is dependent 
upon Luke than that the reverse relation holds; and it 
does not seem to the present writer entirely creditable to 
those who feel that the agreements between Josephus and 
Luke call for explanation, that they have not seriously 
considered this possibility. This is not the place in which 
to discuss the question at length (n. 7). It is sufficient 
to have shown that Luke could not have followed Josephus 
as an authority in historical matters, nor have copied the 
Greek style of this writer. 

At first glance, the genealogy (Luke i. 23-38), the 
communication of the apostles and elders in Jerusalem 
(Acts xv. 23-29), and the letter of Lysias (xxii. 26-30) 
give the impression of being reproduced from original 
documents. If the second of these was a communication 
actually sent from Jerusalem, delivered in Antioch with 
the solemnity which Luke describes, and communicated 
also to other Churches (xvi. 4), it is impossible to suppose 
that so important a document was immediately lost. If 
Luke was a member of the Antiochian Church at the time 
when the communication was delivered there (above, 
_p. 2), he probably heard it read, but this is no evidence 
' at all against the possibility of his having had a copy of 
it when he wrote his history. The style is not that of 
Luke, and the secular tone of the introductory and 
concluding formule is against the assumption that the 
author composed the document, either from his imagina- 
tion, or from indistinct recollections (n. 8). This could 
more easily have been the case with the letter in xxiii. 
26-30, but it cannot be proved. In the proceedings 
before Felix (xxiv. 1-23) and Festus (xxv. 1-12) the 
report of Lysias would almost certainly have been read, 
and, if written in Latin, translated into Greek. The 
situation in which Paul found himself in Ceesarea 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 1o1 


(xxiv. 23), and the friendly relations which always 
existed between him and the military officers to whose 
charge he was committed (xxvii. 8, xxviii. 16, 80f; 
Phil. i. 18), make it quite conceivable that he and his 
friends may have secured a copy of this report, which, 
though brief, was of fundamental importance in his trial. 
Against the assumption that the language of the report 
is entirely Luke’s, which, according to methods of historical 
composition in antiquity, might very well be possible, is, 
first of all, the fact that, although there is no stylistic 
necessity for it, Luke makes the chiliarch, who has not 
been mentioned by name up to this time (xxi. 31- 
Xxli. 22), and who afterwards is called simply Lysias 
(xxiv. 7, recension 8; xxiv. 22), write his name Claudius 
Lysias. In the second place, Lysias’ report shows marked 
variations from the facts as previously recorded. If the 
author of Acts was inventing this report, only partially 
true, he would have directed special attention to the 
effort of the chiliarch to obscure the law in the case, and 
to conceal his own mistake. The connection in which the 
genealogy is recorded, and its conclusion (iii. 23-38), 
indicate that it is an expression of Luke’s own peculiar 
thought (above, p. 70f.); but this does not explain its 
independence not only of Matt. 1, but also of the O.T., 
in so far as the latter could be used for a source. Since it 
was impossible for Luke himself personally to investigate 
the contents of vv. 24-31, and inasmuch as the tradition 
here presupposed could have been transmitted only in 
written form, he must have made use of an older record. 
We know that the relatives of Jesus and their descendants 
interested themselves in these matters (n. 9). 

Since Luke was familiar with a number of attempts 
to write the history of Christianity, and since his char- 
acterisation of these efforts perfectly suits Mark’s Gospel 
(above, p. 49), it is natural to suppose that he used this 
writing. He was acquainted with Mark and knew his 


3569 


102 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


relation to Peter, who was a prominent eye-witness of the 
gospel events. He was in Rome in company with Mark 
about the year 62 (Col. iv. 10, 14), and possibly again in 
66 (2 Tim. iv. 11), consequently at the time when Mark 
wrote his Gospel. A comparison of the two Gospels gives 
for the various portions a greatly varying picture. With 
reference to the order of single narratives, not much is to 
be concluded from Mark i. 1-13 = Luke iii. 1-iv. 13, since 
the order of these events—the preaching and baptism of 
John, the baptism and temptation of Jesus—is determined 
by their very nature. Moreover, Mark’s account here is 
nothing more than a brief sketch. Leaving these passages 
out of account, therefore, the first notable parallel is that 
between Luke iv. 31-vi. 19 and Mark i. 21-10. 19; Luke 
vili. 4—ix. 17 = Mark iv. 1-vi. 44 is a second; Luke ix. 
18-50 = Mark viii. 27-ix. 40 is a third; Luke xviii. 15—43 
= Mark x. 18-52 a fourth; and Luke xix. 29—xxiv. 8= 
Mark xi. 1—xvi. 8 a fifth. In the case of these five series 
of passages the parallelism is by no means complete. 
Luke interrupts the first series with a narrative, v. 1-11, 
only remotely similar to Mark 1. 16-20. In the second 
series Luke inserts a passage, vill. 19-21, which is found 
in Mark iii. 31-35, while Mark iv. 26-29, 30-32, and 
vi. 1-6 are omitted. There is nothing at all in Luke 
corresponding to the first passage, the second is found 
in Luke xii. 18-19, closely connected with a narrative 
peculiar to him, while in place of the third we find a 
much fuller account in the early part of Luke’s Gospel, 
iv. 16-30. In the fourth series, between xviii. 34 and 35, 
Luke omits the narrative found in Mark x. 35-45, giving 
only a meagre substitute for it in Luke xxii. 24-27. In 
the fifth series, the cursing of the fig-tree, Mark xi. 12-14, 
20-25, the question about the greatest of the command- 
ments, Mark xii. 28-34, and the anointing in Bethany, 
Mark xiv. 3-9, are not found in Luke. For the last, 
Luke vii. 86-50 is substituted; for the second, Luke x. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 103 


25-37 ; while in a measure Luke xii. 6-9 takes the place 
of the first (cf. § 63); and for a single saying in this same 
passage, Mark xi. 23 (Matt. xxi. 21, xvii. 20), we find a 
similar saying in Luke xvii. 6. Since these equivalents 
for such material as Mark retains and Luke omits are 
all peculiar to Luke, it is clear that, although Luke 
consciously omitted some things found in Mark, he en- 
deavoured to find substitutes for the omissions. On the 
other hand, in the last series of parallels, Luke substitutes 
a number of brief accounts which are peculiar to himself 
(xix. 41-44 [xxi. 20-24], xxii. 35-38, xxiii. 6-12, 39-438). 
In all five series, however, Mark’s order is, without excep- 
tion, retained throughout. This of itself is sufficient to 
render necessary some explanation of the dependence of 
one of the Gospels upon the other—particularly since, in 
many instances, the order followed is not a reproduction 
of the real succession of events. This lack of chrono- 
logical order does not escape the attention of the careful 
reader of Mark (vol. ii. 499 f.), and Luke betrays a clear © 
consciousness of it. There is evidence that Luke made an 
effort to fix more definitely the time of events, as, e.g., 
when he gives a more definite date to a Sabbath which 
Mark leaves undetermined—following the Jewish calendar 
(Luke vi. 1)—and distinguishes it expressly from another 
Sabbath (vi. 6), whereas the ordinary reader might infer 
from Mark iii. 1 (cf. Matt. xii. 9) that the transactions 
which Luke assigns to two different Sabbaths happened 
on the same day ; cf. also other occasional instances where 
he gives the time more accurately (e.g. vi. 1, 6, vii. 11). 
In many instances, however, he either did not do this at 
all or did it ineffectively, as is proved by the use of 
formule such as are found in v. 12, 17, viii. 4, 22, ix. 18, 
xx. 1. These occur in the sections parallel to Mark, as 
well as in other parts of Luke’s Gospel (v. 1, x. 38, xi. 1, 
29, xi. 10, xiv. 1; cf. above, p. 66). When, however, 
notwithstanding this formal disavowal of all attempt to 


104 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


give an exact chronology where this is not attainable, he 
nevertheless follows in these five series exactly the same 
order as Mark, the coincidence can be explained as due 
neither to a stereotyped oral tradition, nor to accident. 
But if one of these Gospels is dependent upon the 
other, Mark must be considered the earlier of the two. 
Leaving out of account the tradition, according to which 
Mark wrote before Luke (vol. ii. 392 ff.), and the proofs 
which we have from Luke’s own work that it was written 
later than 70 (§ 62), this conclusion follows from a com- 
parison of the details of the parallels. Combinations of 
words, such as xnptcowv Bartiopa petavoias eis abeouw 
ayaptiav, which are found in Mark i. 4 following Kaas 
yéyparta, év tO ‘Hoala té tpodyty, in Luke iii. 3 before 
es yéypamtar ev BiBd\w Aoywov ‘Hoalov rod mpodytov, do not 
originate independently of each other. Luke appears 
here, however, as the stylist smoothing down the awk- 
ward expressions which Mark uses in making his citations 
(n. 10). In fact this is everywhere the case. It is not 
to be assumed that Luke undertook to remove all the 
Hebraisms which he found in the accounts he used, and 
’ to produce an historical work uniform in style, modelled 
after the language of Polybius or the periods of his own 
preface. As regards style, Luke’s work is as varied as it 
could well be. The narratives in Luke i-ii. and the 
psalm-like discourses of these chapters read like sections 
out “of the O.T.; while the style and language of the 
discourses of Paul on the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 22-81) 
and before the noble lords and ladies in Ceesarea (xxiv. 
10-21, xxvi. 2-23) are more like those of the orator 
Tertullus (xxiv. 2-8), and of the procurator Festus (xxv. 
14-21), than the discourses in Acts i—x. Luke uses a 
few Hebraisms, not only in the narratives probably, or 
certainly, taken from older sources, but in connective 
phrases and summaries, which are of his own composi- 
tion (n. 11). He shows a feeling for the special style 


a} 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 105 


corresponding to the sacred character of his theme, and 
does not allow the spirit in which the eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word were wont to speak from the 
beginning to be replaced by a secular tone. He does, 
nevertheless, soften somewhat the Semitic colouring, set- 
ting aside expressions unnecessarily harsh, and striving 
to make the narrative more lucid. Not only are the most 
marked Hebraisms and the Aramaic words of Mark re- 
moved, but also such characteristic expressions as Mark’s 
edOvs (n. 12), also such peculiarities as are due to Mark’s 
personal relations and the fact that his Gospel was de- 
signed for Roman readers (Mark xii. 42, xiv. 17, 51f, 
see teesee vol. u. 487 f.; ef. Luke xxi. 2,.xxn. 14, 53; 
Xxill. 26), and imperfections in the presentation due to 
Mark’s very exact reproduction of the narratives of Peter 
(Mark i. 29=Luke iv. 38; Mark ii. 26=Luke vi. 14; 
Mark ix. 14f. = Luke ix. 37f.; Mark xii. 1-3 = Luke 
xxi. 5). He avoids also other redundancies and awk- 
wardnesses which occur in Mark (e.g. Mark i. 32 = Luke 
iy. 40), and in countless instances selects words which 
are more pleasing or more expressive (n. 13). Since some 
of these words and phrases are hapaxlegomena in the 
N.T., and inasmuch as others of them are used in the 
same way elsewhere in Luke’s work, and only in Luke’s 
work, they are to be considered as peculiarities of his 
style, and are not to be explained as derived from one 
of the sources which Luke and Mark may have used in 
common. ‘This, like the other assumption that Mark had 
Luke before him, would compel us to assume that Mark 
intentionally and regularly replaced the better language 
of Luke, or of the common source, by more awkward 
expressions. But this is incredible. Consequently a 
comparison of the style of Mark and Luke shows that, 
in the five sections of his Gospel mentioned, Luke made 
use of Mark in preparing his own work. 

While Luke recasts the style of Mark with consider- 


106. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


able thoroughness, very little change is to be noted in 
the contents of such portions as he adopts, and which 
he does not replace in other parts of his work by similar 
and sometimes fuller narratives (above, p. 102). Only 
in one important point does Luke consciously vary his 
account from that of Mark. Mark i. 14, like Matt. iv. 
12, connects the beginning of the Galilean ministry 
with the arrest of the Baptist, and associates it with 
the account of the temptation in such a way as to 
lead the reader readily to infer that the arrest of 
the Baptist follows immediately upon the temptation. 
Luke, however, varies this order of events. On the 
one hand, he, alone of the Synoptists, connects the 
beginning of the Galilean ministry of Jesus definitely 
and closely with His baptism (iv. 15, év 7H Suvdyer tod 
mvevpatos ; cf. iii. 22, iv. 1), and describes the journey to 
Galilee, which introduces His ministry there, as a return 
(iv. 14, bréotpeper ; cf. iv. 1) from the journey which had 
taken Jesus to the place of His baptism and temptation. 
On the other hand, he wholly separates this journey from 
the arrest of the Baptist (above, p. 63 f.), a later incident 
which here he anticipates in the form of an episode in 
il. 19-20. The journey to Galilee, which Luke places 
after the baptism and temptation, is not the same as the 
journey to Galilee, which in Mark follows the arrest of 
the Baptist. It must be assumed that the apparent 
succession of events in Mark is replaced in Luke by 
another, which is the result of the author’s investiga- 
tions, and which is adopted in view of xade&js in i. 3. 
This conclusion is not affected by the fact that thereafter 
Luke introduces immediately and chiefly events, which 
Mark and Matthew place in Galilee after the arrest of 
the Baptist ; since it is apparent that throughout his 
Gospel, in the sections following iv. 14-15, Luke con- 
sciously abandons the attempt to arrange the single 
narratives chronologically (above, p. 64). It is also 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS _ 107 


clear that, according to him, the work of Jesus between 
His baptism and temptation is by no means confined to 
Galilee (iv. 44, x. 838-42; above, p. 88f.,n. 18). It may 
be remarked here, that through his investigations Luke 
made marked advances on the form of such an historical 
work as Mark’s Gospel in the direction of what we find 
in John. He is no mere imitator of written models 
which he has before him, nor is he satisfied simply to 
recast the style of his sources; he is rather an historian 
who handles his material critically. We may assume that, 
in addition to Mark, he made use of other attempts at 
a gospel history, working them over in the same way that 
he did this Gospel. 

We have already seen from the prologue that Luke 
did not have access to any gospel writings that originated 
with an apostle or disciple of Jesus (above, p. 49); it 
is, therefore, equally improbable that he used Matthew ; 
for the latter was never attributed to a disciple of an 
apostle, but was from the first assigned to the apostle 
Matthew (vol. u. 177 ff). This statement would be true 
of an “original apostolic document” or the “logia,” if 
these books ever existed ; since, if their existence be as- 
sumed, all the traditions denied with reference to Matthew 
must be transferred to them. One of these mythical 
books, from which the author of our Matthew is supposed 
to have drawn, must have passed as the work of the 
apostle Matthew, otherwise we are unable to understand 
why, from the very first and uniformly in the tradition, 
the Greek Matthew was ascribed to this apostle. More- 
over, we have seen the correctness of the position, accord- 
ing to which Matthew is the translation of an Aramaic 
book, the contents of which were for a long time accessible 
only through oral interpretation to those who were un- 
familiar with this language. The same would be true of 
the “‘logia.” But it may be doubted whether Luke, who 
was a Greek, was able to read an Aramaic book. His 


108 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


citations from the O.T. betray no knowledge whatever of 
the original text, or of a Targum. Not all of the four 
translations of Aramaic names which we find in Luke’s 
work (Acts i. 19, iv. 36, ix. 36, xiii. 8) are beyond 
question, and if they were it is perfectly possible that 
Luke may have taken his translations from others, with- 
out himself possessing even a superficial knowledge of 
Aramaic. There are several Aramaic words with which, 
as a native of Antioch, he may always have been familiar, 
and others, together with several Hebrew termini, with 
which he became acquainted in the common life of the 
Church (n. 14). On the other hand, if, as is probable, 
the Greek Matthew was not written before the year 80 
(vol. ii. 516 f.), it is unlikely, for chronological reasons, 
that Luke read it before writing his own Gospel (§ 62). 
This improbability is strengthened into impossibility by 
a comparison of the two Gospels. One who had read 
Matt. i.—ii.—especially in a work which purported to be 
that of an apostle—could not have written Luke i.—i. in 
its present form, which is practically without resemblance 
to the narrative in Matthew (it is only necessary to compare 
Luke i. 316 and Matt. 1. 21a), notwithstanding the fact 
that there is much that is common in the subject-matter. 
Moreover, the later writer would certainly have betrayed 
his attempt at correction or improvement, where he be- 
lieved that the contents and form of Matt. iii. could be 
improved. In particular, it would have been impossible 
for an historian of the character Luke shows himself to 
be, as compared with Mark, to pass by practically un- 
noticed material so important as that in Matt. ii—really 
excluding it as he does by Luke i. 39. It may after a 
fashion be possible in a Gospel harmony to reconcile the 
contents of the opening chapters of the two Gospels, in- 
cluding Luke ii. 23-38, but a synoptic presentation is 
out of the question. Not until Matt. ii. 1 = Luke iii. 1 
is this possible, and then only here and there. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 109 


The proof derived from a comparison of the opening 
chapters of the Gospel and confirmed by the hints of 
Luke’s prologue, that Luke did not use our Matthew as a 
source, is so strong, that the only question which can be 
seriously discussed is whether Luke and Matthew drew 
from common sources. We know that Luke made use of 
written sources, and the relation which has been proved 
to exist between Luke and Mark leads us to assume that, 
in addition to Mark, he used other similar documents. 
It is, however, @ priovt improbable that he used docu- 
ments which earlier or later were employed in the com- 
position of Matthew ; since our investigation of Matthew 
gave no occasion for the assumption that this author 
made any use whatever of written sources (vol. ii. 581 f.). 
In the investigation of this question the five sections of 
Luke, which we saw were taken over by Luke from Mark 
with certain modifications, are to be excepted at the 
outset (above, p. 102 f.); since whatever agreements be- 
tween Luke and Matthew appear in these passages, all 
go back to Mark, and are to be explained on the ground 
of the relation of Mark to Matthew (see vol. ii. 601 f.), 
and the connection which has been shown to exist between 
Luke and Mark (see above, p. 101 f.). In these five sections 
there is not a single sentence from which a direct relation 
between Luke and Matthew, or the relation of Luke to a 
source used in Matthew, can be proved (n. 15). In the 
second place, in the critical comparison of Matthew and 
Luke, the following passages peculiar to Luke are to be 
left out of consideration—passages to which there is a 
remote parallel are placed in parentheses : i. 1-3, ii. 10- 
15, 23-88 (iv. 16-80, v. 1-10), vi. 11-17, 36-50, viii. 
1-3, ix. 51-56, 61-62, x. 1-20 (with the exception of a 
few sayings), x. 29-42 (xi. 1-4), xi. 5-8, 27-28, 37-41, 
xii, 13-21 (32-57), xiii. 1-17, 31-38, xiv. 1-16, 31 (with 
the exception of xiv. 11, 17, xv. 4-7), xvil. 7-22, xviii. 
1-14, xix. 1-27, 41-44 (xxi. 20-24), xxiii. 5-12, 27-31, 


110 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


39-43, xxiv. (1-11) 12-53. Comparatively little re- 
mains, and, with the exception of short disconnected 
sentences, this consists of only the following passages 
[parallels of Matthew in parentheses]: ii. 7-9, 17 (ii. 
7-12), iv. 1-18 (iv. 1-11), vi. 20-49 (5-7), vil. 1-10 (viii. 
5-10, 13), vii. 18-35 (xi. 2-19), ix. 57-60 (viii. 19-22), 
x. 18-15, 21-24 (xi. 20-27, xiii. 16-17), xi. 24-26, 29- 
36 (xii. 838-45, v. 15, vi. 22-23), xi. 42-52 (xxiii. 4-35), 
xii, 2-12 (x. 17-33), xii. 22-31 (vi. 25-33), xii. 41-48 
(xxiv. 45-51), xii. 54-56 (xvi. 2-3 ?), xii, 57-59 (v. 25- 
26), xiii. 24-80 (vii. 18-14, 21-23, viii. 11-12), xiii. 
34-35 (xxiii. 37-39), xvii. 23-37 (xxiv. 23-28, 37-42), 
xix. 12-28 (xxv. 14-30). In order accurately to com- 
pare these parallels, even more than in other critical 
investigations, it would be necessary to have a text of 
both Gospels, but especially of Luke, and this reliable 
even in smallest details, since nothing contributed so 
much to the degeneration of the Gospel text as the 
tendency to supplement and correct one Gospel from the 
parallels in the others, and in fact especially the text of 
Mark and Luke on the basis of Matthew. In the Textus 
receptus the Gospels are very much more alike than in 
any even moderately critically corrected text; and the 
difference would be even greater, if text criticism were 
more advanced than it is at present. Few narratives are 
to be found among the parallels cited, though, on the 
other hand, there are numerous sayings, which are gener- 
ally reported with an historical setting. As regards the 
narrative sections, it is impossible to form an intelligent 
conception of a single written source from which, e.g., the 
two differing narratives in Luke vii. 1-10 and Matt. viii. 
5-10, 13 could both have been derived through a process 
of revision on the part of the authors. What Luke adds 
(vv. 8-5) has the marks of genuine tradition, and the 
effort to secure brevity, to be seen in some parts of 
Matthew (vol. il. 583 f., 607) could not have brought it 


¢ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 111 


about that in this passage the narrative should be of the 
character of an excerpt ; since the account is enlarged by 
the insertion of a saying of Jesus, probably spoken on 
another occasion (Matt. viii. 11-12, cf. Luke xiii. 28-29), 
Even if Luke made use of an earlier account in this 
passage—as is perfectly possible—in the last analysis the 
divergence of his narrative from Matthew goes back to 
variations in the historical material, which appear when- 
ever what has happened and been experienced is re- 
peatedly related by different persons, even when there 
are eye-witnesses among the narrators. The accounts of 
the temptation are very similar in Matthew and Luke ; but 
the differing order in which the second and third tempta- 
tions are narrated is most naturally explained by the 
assumption that those who had heard Jesus give an 
account of them (n. 16) repeated what they heard from 
memory in different ways. It is inconceivable that Luke 
should have deliberately chosen the reversed order, if he 
had had before him Matt. iv. 1-11, or any other docu- 
ment having the order of Matthew’s account; since the 
close of Luke’s account, which leaves Jesus standing upon 
the pinnacle of the temple instead of upon a mountain in 
the wilderness, cannot be said to be an improvement on 
Matthew. 

Some of the discourses and sayings common to 
Matthew and Luke show striking similarity, but others 
vary widely from each other in form, though having 
essentially the same content and showing the same pro- 
gress of thought. The best example of the former is the 
denunciatory address of the Baptist (Luke iii. 7-9, ef. 
also x. 21-22, xiii. 34-35), of the latter, the Sermon on 
the Mount (vi. 20-49, cf. xiii. 24-40). Elements of the 
tradition similar to those which appear in Luke ii. 7-9, 
etc., could be easily preserved and strongly impressed 
upon the memory quite without the help of writing. On 
the other hand, when sayings like Luke ii. 7-9, Matt. 


112. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iii. 7-10 came to be written, it was necessary at least to 
intimate who the persons were whom John called a 
“generation of vipers.” Here, however, the accounts of 
Matthew and Luke vary widely from each other. The 
Sermon on the Mount in Luke (vi. 20-49) cannot be 
regarded as an excerpt from Matthew (v.—vii.), nor can 
the latter be explained as a remodelling of the material in 
Luke. Even granting that Luke may have left out state- 
ments of great importance for the first evangelist, such as 
are found in Matt. v. 17-48, because they did not suit his 
purpose,—assuming, of course, that he found them in one 
of his sources, and granting that Matthew incorporated 
into his account of the Sermon on the Mount more 
passages belonging in a different historical connection 
than we are able at present to prove (vol. ii. 558 f.),—in 
those parts which are parallel we find differences in the 
language which cannot be explained as due to necessity 
for modification in style, or rearrangement of material. 
These differences are, however, natural, if the discourse 
was heard by numerous persons and variously reproduced 
in the oral tradition. It is more than likely that Luke 
found this and other discourses in one or more of the 
records of the “many” of whom he speaks (i. 1). In 
view of Luke’s handling of Mark’s Gospel, we are justified 
in assuming that the greater elegance of style, e.g. Luke 
vi. 47-49 = Matt. vil. 24-27, is due to him. But we are 
not able to go much beyond such assumptions in ascer- 
taining what other sources, besides Mark, Luke used in 
his Gospel (n. 17). 

Passages like Luke 1.-11., the poetical charm and true 
Israelitish spirit of which in the narrative portions and 
the inserted psalms is comparable only to the finest parts 
of the books of Samuel, could not have been written by a 
Greek like Luke. They must have originated in Pales- 
tine, where men and women of prophetic temperament 
and prophetic gifts were closely associated with the be- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 113 


ginnines and progress of Christianity (1. 41, 46-55, 67- 
fea) 20, 06 Acts i 17, xi. 27 £) xv. 32; xxn OE). 
Luke twice points out (il. 19, 51, cf. i. 66) that Mary 
kept in memory and pondered significant sayings associ- 
ated with the childhood and youth of her son. This is 
said only of Mary, not of Joseph, though at this time he 
must have been still alive. In this way Luke indicates 
that the traditions in Luke i.-11. were transmitted through 
her. Who first wrote them down and when they were 
written we do not know. Nor can any intelligent critic 
regard the other narrative sections peculiar to Luke 
as his own fabrications, or as legends which originated 
outside of Palestine in the second or third generation 
after Christ. Their striking originality, which could not 
have been invented, has impressed them upon the mind 
of the Christian world to an extent scarcely true of any 
other portion of the whole body of gospel literature. In 
the distinctively historical portions we find indications of 
locality (vii. -11, xvii. 11, xix. 1, xxiv. 13), names of 
persons (vii. 40, viii. 3, x. 38 f,, xix. 2, xxiv. 18), and 
delineations of character difficult to invent (x. 40, xiii. 
32, xix. 3f.), also references to current events otherwise 
unknown (xiii. 1, 4, xxiii. 12), and a genuine Israelitish 
colouring (xi..27, xii. 11, 14) 16, xiv..15, xix. 9, xxiii 
28-31, 42 f., xxiv. 21)—all of which is proof against the 
suspicion of later invention. The same is true of the 
parables and kindred sayings of Jesus (x. 30-37, xii. 16— 
21, xiii. 6—9, xiv. 16-24, xv. 1—xvi. 31, xviii. 1-14). When 
on one occasion Luke says, in flat contradiction to Mark 
x. 46, which he had before him, that Jesus healed a blind 
man as He drew near to Jericho (xviii. 35), not as He was 
leaving the city, it must be because he has before him 
still another account of the incident, from which he does 
not wish to vary; and the more unimportant the detail 
the more likely is this to have been the case. The 
passage xix. 1-10 shows that he had at his disposal 
VOL. IIT. 8 


114. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


independent traditions regarding the events of this par- 
ticular day. Whether this information was derived from 
Zaccheus, or from a book, no one is able to say (n. 18). 
The two narratives concerning Herod Antipas peculiar to 
Luke (xiii. 31-83, xxiii. 6-12, 15)—the way for the 
second of which is prepared as early as in ix. 9 by an 
addition peculiar to Luke, which is also referred to again 
in Acts iv: 27—naturally recalls the fact that the wife 
of an official under this prince was one of those who 
accompanied Jesus (Luke viii. 3, cf. John iv. 46 %), 
also that, according to Acts xii. 1, a foster- brother, 
or youthful companion of the tetrarch, was one of the 
teachers of the Church in Antioch at the time when the 
narrator in Acts was a member of that congregation 
(according to xi. 27 f, above, p. 2). But the existence 
of such oral sources, upon which Luke could draw in 
making his investigations, does not preclude the possi- 
bility of his having used, in addition to Mark, one or 
more of the numerous written accounts which are men- 
tioned in Luke i. 1. The fact that Luke modified materi- 
ally the style of the documents which he used, as proved 
by his relation to Mark and by a comparison of his 
Gospel with Matthew (above, p. 104, and below, nn. 
9-12), deprives us almost entirely of one favourite means 
of determining sources, namely, by comparison of language. 
Here and there we find narratives which more than others 
show genuine Jewish conception and modes of expression, 
or greater elegance of Greek style ; but on the whole the 
narratives are uniform. The differences for the most part 
are to be easily explained by the variety of the material 
and of the setting (above, p. 104, and below, n. 19). 
With reference to most of the accounts in Acts, 
the author was in a different situation than he was in 
regard to the contents of his first book—provided our 
interpretation of the prologue be correct (above, p. 41 f.),. 
In much of the history which he here records he had been ~ 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 115 


a participant, as he indicates by the introduction of a 
“we” in parts where this was the case (above, p. 54 f.). 
Among these “we” passages there are two long sections, 
xx. 5-xxi. 17 and xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, which stand out as 
peculiar in character. While in xi. 27 (above, p. 4, 
n. 3), xvi. 10-17 the only practical purpose which the 
“we ” seems to serve is to call attention to the presence 
of the narrator, without the narrative on this account 
assuming a character different from that of chaps. xiii.— 
XV., XVili—xix., in the two passages (xx. 5-xxi. 17, 
XXVil. 1—xxviii. 16) we have connected accounts of journeys 
which are totally distinct from all other parts of Acts, 
the contents of which admit of comparison. The journey 
from Antioch to Philippi, and thence to Thessalonica, and 
from Bercea by way of Athens to Corinth (xv. 40—xvi. 12, 
xvi. 40-xvili. 1) is so briefly sketched that for the most 
part we must conjecture the route selected, the places 
touched on the way, the length of the stops, and the time | 
of the year (vol. i. § 13). Only when the author records 
what happened in the cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, 
Athens, and Corinth does the account become more de- 
tailed ; practically nothing is said concerning the journey 
itself. Essentially the same is true in the case of the first 
missionary journey, Acts xiil.—xiv. Other journeys, e.g., 
im-Acts xi. 30—xu. 25, xvii. 18—xix. 1, xx. 1—4, are dis- 
missed with a few words; but in xx. 5-xxi. 17 and 
XXvil. 1—-xxvill. 16 we have practically a daily record 
of the journey with numerous exact statements as to the 
time of the year (xx. 6, 16, xxvil. 9, 12), the various 
stopping places on the way—even those where nothing of 
any special importance took place (xx. 13-15, xxi. 1-8, 
XXviil. 8-8, 16, xxviii. 12-15)—the time occupied by 
different parts of the journey and by the stops, the 
change of ships, the nationality, destination, and names 
of ships in which the journey was made (xxi. 2, XXvil. 
2, 6, xxviii. 11), changes from travel by land to travel by 


= 


116 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sea and wice versa (xx. 18, xxi. 7), conditions of weather, 
and the minute details of the sea voyages. In not a 
single instance can the indications of time be said to be 
designed to make the history clear. After what is said 
in Acts xx. 6, 16, the reader is interested to know 
whether Paul succeeded in reaching Jerusalem before or 
after Pentecost, but he is destined to be disappointed. 
There is no clear indication of the time when the end of 
the journey was reached, and, from the notices of the 
daily journey which precede, we are unable to estimate 
the length of time occupied between Philippi and Jeru- 
salem, since the length of the stay in Miletus and Ceesarea 
(xx. 15-xxi. 1, 8-15) and the length of the voyage from 
Rhodes to Tyre (xxi. 1-3) and of the land journey from 
Tyre to Ptolemais and from Cesarea to Jerusalem are not 
given by days. It is true that the elaborateness of these 
two accounts does impress the reader with a strong sense 
of the situation. He receives a vivid impression of the 
care exercised by divine providence over the life of the 
apostle who was destined to do more great things. But 
most of the details mentioned have no bearing on this 
point. They are out of relation to the main historical 
idea that is being developed to an extent not paralleled 
anywhere else in Luke’s work. 

Luke’s interest in minute details, proper names, ete., 
which are not absolutely necessary in the narrative, is to 
be observed elsewhere also (Acts ix. 25, xii. 18, 20, xiii. 1, 
0 8713, Sx. 2, Re 16;19,. xxi. Shey 
11), and it would be arbitrary to infer from the absence 
of “we” in xx. 16-38, xxi. 19-26, 32, that the narrator 
was less familiar with the facts which he records in these 
passages than he is with the facts recorded in the “ we” 
passages. or it will be observed that the sections where 
the “we” is omitted deal in every instance with some 
action or suffering of Paul’s which could not be shared by 
another in the same way that a journey in company with 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 117 


him from Philippi to Jerusalem and from Czesarea to 
Rome could be shared (cf. above, pp. 55f., 87, n. 18). 
In connection with the meeting with James, where the 
narrator was present (xxi. 18), it was necessary to omit 
the ‘‘ we,” because Paul alone had to do with the elders in 
Jerusalem. As yet no evidence has been advanced which 
proves that the person who wrote the entire section, 
xx. 4—xxvill. 31, was not always in close touch with the 
events which he records. Nevertheless, the accounts of 
the two journeys mentioned—to which possibly xvi. 10- 
18 may be added as a remnant of a third—are distinct in 
character. They could not have been written for the first 
time when the author composed his history ; rather he 
must have had them in his possession and have inserted 
them in his book, retaining all the details which were not 
necessary, either for the sake of the narrative or for the 
readers’ understanding of the history. There may be 
difference of opinion as to how many changes Luke made ~ 
in the form and contents of these journey-narratives, 
whether he inserted passages from his memory of events 
that had happened elsewhere, or narratives of his own 
invention. But, apart from all these conjectures, there is 
no doubt as to the fact that these portions are distinct in 
character from the rest of the book. 

Repeated examination of chap. xxv. by experts has 
shown that, while it could not have been written by a 
mariner, it must have been written by some gifted man 
who accompanied Paul on the journey, and who had an 
appreciation of nature and of the incidents of a sea voyage 
(n. 20). If, without recourse to the tradition, we were to 
ask which one of Paul’s travelling companions was most 
likely to have been the author of the accounts of these 
journeys, the most probable answer would be Luke, the 
physician. If he is, at the same time, the author of the 
entire work, it was his own notes, which he had written 
down in the form of a journal during the voyage, that he 


118 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


incorporated in his history. Even the best memory will 
not retain for decades all such details as changes in the 
weather and the movements of the sailors in a voyage 
lasting for months, and no historian would record in a 
large work such recollections as he might have, simply 
because he had not forgotten them. The incorporation 
by the author in the work of these accounts, which in 
their details are so out of proportion to the other narra- 
tives in the book, is most conceivable, if they were 
recorded by him years before. In addition to the pur- 
pose which he had accomplished in an earlier passage by 
the introduction of “we ”—namely, to prove that he had 
been an eye-witness of the events recorded—he secured 
by this means vividness in the narrative which could be 
obtained in no other way. The fact that Luke incor- 
porates into his work only accounts of travels, is easily 
explained by the common experience that persons who do 
not regularly keep a journal do so with the greatest pre- 
cision when they travel. However uninteresting and 
meagre such notes may be in themselves, for the person 
who afterwards has to relate the history of travels in 
which he was one of the party, they are invaluable and 
become more and more so as the years pass. 

A further point to be noted—self-evident, but at first 
thought strange—is the fact that Luke did not use as 
sources the letters of Paul, which in our estimation are 
authorities of the first importance for the history which 
Luke records (n. 21). When Luther expresses the opinion 
that Acts may well be called “a gloss to the Epistles of 
St. Paul” (in a preface of the year 1534), he means that 
Acts furnishes historical illustrations of Pauline doctrine. 
Acts may be so designated also because it furnishes the 
reader of Paul’s letters with an historical guide, without 
which even those who question its genuineness could 
not make their way through the Epistles. If, on other 
grounds, it were conceivable that Luke had never heard 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 119 


of Paul’s letters, this unaccountable ignorance on his part 
would be quite confirmed by the entire silence of Acts 
concerning the Epistles of Paul (n. 22), and by the 
absence of points of formal resemblance between Acts 
and the letters, where both handle the same facts. Of 
course there are points of similarity between the contents 
of an early account of Paul’s missionary work and the 
letters which Paul wrote in the midst of this work: if 
the case were otherwise, it would be necessary to assume, 
either that the Epistles are pure forgeries or the historical 
accounts pure inventions. Since neither can reasonably 
be accepted as true, it is not surprising that the Epistles 
and Acts agree as to numerous facts. But the fact that 
the narratives of Acts are uniformly independent of the 
Epistles, both as regards the form and the compass of 
historical material handled, is of great significance in 
the criticism of Acts. Exactly the same relation exists as 
between Luke i—i1. and Matt. 1-11. (above, p. 108f.). It 
is altogether inconceivable that an author, who read the 
letters of Paul for the sake of the historical information in 
them, and who intended to use them as sources, should 
have made no use of the wealth of interesting historical 
matter which they contained, particularly if he were 
short of material. Such a procedure would be inexplic- 
able, even if the author were so devoid of conscience as 
to esteem his own theological or ecclesiastical opinion and 
purpose above historical truth as contained in such ancient 
documents as the Pauline letters. For he was under 
obligation, not simply to pass by the things which he 
desired to set in different light from that in which they 
had been represented by Paul, in fact he had no right to 
do so, but he was able, and was in duty bound, to recon- 
struct Paul’s statements to suit his own unhistorical purpose. 

Taking up first the gospel history, if the opinion 
regarding the text of Luke xxii. 17-20 expressed above, 
p. 39f., be correct, Luke did not utilise in any way the 


120 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


account in 1 Cor. xi. 23-25. If the text, as it stands, 
proves to be the right one, significant differences still 
remain, and the agreement may be very simply explained 
as due to the fact that Luke belonged to the Church in 
Antioch at the time when Paul was a teacher there (above, 
pp. 89 f., 28 f.), so that his idea of the institution of the 
Lord’s Supper was derived from the same oral tradition as 
that of Paul. It may be for the same reason that Luke x. 7 
agrees with 1 Tim. v. 18 (#soG0d), as against Matt. x. 10 
(tpopjs). Luke makes no use whatever of the account in 
1 Cor. xv. 5-7, which, in our estimation, is so important. 
During the forty days mentioned in Acts i. 3 there was 
ample time for the appearance to the ‘more than five 
hundred brethren,” and to James. There is no evidence 
of a disposition on Luke’s part to emphasise the exclusive 
authority of the twelve apostles (but cf. above, p. 49 f.), or 
to minimise James’ position in the Church. The fact that 
he mentions an appearance to Peter alone, but without 
giving any account of it (Luke xxiv. 34=1 Cor. xv. 5), 
and the fact that he records an appearance to the group of 
apostles on Haster evening, and still another appearance to 
the same circle at the close of the forty days (xxiv. 36; 
Acts i. 4 ff.)—seeming in these points to agree with 1 Cor. 
xv. 5b, 7b—do not lessen at all his manifest independence 
of Paul. Luke makes no use of Paul’s autobiographical 
statements. A statement of the apostle’s descent from the 
tribe of Benjamin (Phil. iti. 5) would have been just as 
much in place in Acts xxii. 3 as is the remark in Luke 
ii, 36 (cf. also Acts xiii. 21). No mention is made in 
Acts of “the contest with wild beasts” in Ephesus (1 Cor. 
xy. 32), which in the Acts of Paul is enlarged into an 
adventurous story (GK, il. 880). Nor is anything said 
about the five times thirty-nine stripes which Paul received 
from the Jews, the three shipwrecks prior to the voyage 
to Rome, dangers by rivers and perils by robbers (2 Cor, 
xi, 23-26). uke mentions only one instance when the 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 121 


apostle was stoned (Acts xiv. 19 =2 Cor. xi. 25; ef. 2 Tim. 
ii. 11), and of the three scourgings with rods he gives an 
account of only one, and records only one of the numerous 
imprisonments which Paul suffered prior to his long im- 
prisonment (Acts xvi. 22-40; 2 Cor. xi. 23, 25). From 
all this it appears that Acts gives us anything but a 
complete history of Paul; at the same time, it is evident 
that its reports are derived from independent and trust- 
worthy sources. As regards Paul’s history before his 
conversion, at the time of it, and shortly afterwards, 
one acquainted with the Epistles, who had formed his 
conception of the scene near Damascus from 1 Cor. 
Pemaxy. 6 >) cf. Gale 412,16; 2° Cor; iv. 6, would 
hardly have obscured so completely as in Acts ix. 4-7, 
xxl. 6-11, xxvi. 12-19, the fact that Paul saw the form 
of Jesus, nor would the testimony to this fact be so 
waenrect as in Acts ix. 17, 27, xxi. 14,15; ef. ix a7e 
There is no reason why, if Luke used Paul’s letters, he 
should have passed over the journey to Arabia, which 
is mentioned in Gal. i. 17, as a merely temporary absence 
from Damascus, and which, therefore, could very well have 
taken place during the *pépas ixavai of Acts ix. 23; nor 
is it easy to see why he should have omitted all reference 
to the part taken by the ethnarch Aretas in the plot 
against Paul’s life (2 Cor. xi. 32)—which does not in any 
way exclude the possibility of the plans having originated 
with the Jews (Acts ix. 23; see n. 23)—nor why he should 
have replaced the notice of the personal contact of Paul 
with Peter and James (Gal. i. 18f) by the colourless 
statement that Paul had intercourse with the apostles 
(Acts ix. 27f.), nor why the exact statement that Paul’s 
stay in Jerusalem lasted but fifteen days should have 
been exchanged for a brief sketch which leaves the reader 
to guess whether this sojourn lasted ten days or several 
months. Even where Luke and Paul do agree, no striking 
similarity of expression is to be observed (n. 23). In the 


122 -INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


account of the first missionary journey (xiii. 2—xiv. 28), 
besides the similarities in the story of the stoning in 
Lystra, which has been already mentioned, Luke’s narra- 
tive has points of resemblance to 2 Tim. iu. 11, and to 
various hints and presuppositions in Galatians (vol. 1. 
§ 4). While, on the one hand, it would be impossible 
to form a definite idea of the course of events from the 
hints of Galatians—for example, from the reference in 
Gal. iv. 14 f. to the event described in Acts xiv. 11-18 
(vol. i. 180)—without aid from the vivid narrative of 
Acts, on the other hand, it is just as impossible to suppose 
that Luke’s account, which is so full of details, was derived 
from this source. The very clear statement of Paul (Gal. 
iv. 13; vol. i. 165, 181), that his sojourn in the cities of 
Lycaonia was due to an illness, is not found in Acts at all. 

The relation of this account of Luke to Paul’s letters 
may be summarised in a word, by saying that it is such 
as would naturally exist between the account of a well- 
informed and truthful historian and original sources which 
he had not seen. This is the case also with reference to 
the second missionary journey (Acts xv. 40—xvui. 17). 
Silas was the elder of Paul’s two helpers, and Paul always 
places his name before that of Timothy (1 Thess. i. 1; 
2 Thess. i. 1; 2 Cor. i. 19), but Luke never calls him by 
his Roman name, Silvanus, as does Paul uniformly (vol. i. 
31f., 207). Luke’s statement that Timothy’s mother was 
a Jewess and his father a Greek (xvi. 1), is confirmed by 
what is said and left unsaid in 2 Tim. i. 5 (vol. ii. 22, 
n. 4), but Luke does not mention the name Eunice. 
The hints with reference to the ordination of Timothy 
goa Tim) 6b) 18) iw. 145) 2eTim i. 61 Tima 
harmonise with Acts xvi. 2 (vol. ii, 28, n. 5, 94), but 
there is no evidence of dependence. We know from 
Phil. ii. 3 (vol. 1. 538, n. 7) that Timothy was cireum- 
cised (Acts xvi. 3); and that this was done in Timothy’s 
home, the province of Galatia, is confirmed by Gal. v. 11 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 123 


(vol. i. 182). But if these facts are overlooked or denied 
by our clever critics, notwithstanding the fact that they 
have the “gloss to the Epistles of St. Paul,” how could 
Luke have constructed his concrete narrative from such 
obscure hints? No notice is taken in Acts of the names 
of the persons who are prominent in the organisation of 
the Church in Philippi, Phil. iv. 2-3 (vol. i. 529f,, 582f.), 
or the remittances of money from the Philippians, Phil. iv. 
15-16, and of the hints in 1 and 2 Thess. concerning the 
circumstances under which the Church in Thessalonica was 
organised. The only point directly confirmed in Acts is 
the fact that Paul went to Thessalonica from Philippi 
after he had been maltreated in the latter city (1 Thess. 
ii, 2). In Acts xvii. 15f, xvii. 5, Luke leads the reader 
to infer that Paul remained in Athens alone without his 
two helpers, and that these did not join him again until 
after his arrival in Corinth (vol. 1. 205, 210f.), which is 
directly opposed to 1 Thess. 11. 17-111. 6,—a contradiction 
for which there is no conceivable reason, while there is no 
contradiction between Paul and Acts with regard to the 
history of the Corinthian Church (vol. i. 265); their state- 
ments are as mutually independent of each other as they 
could well be. What we learn from 1 Cor. i. 1, 14, xvi. 19, 
regarding Sosthenes, Crispus, Aquila, and Priscilla does 
not in any way resemble what is said of these persons in 
Acts xviii. 1-17. The names Chloe, Gaius (it is not the 
Corinthian Gaius who is referred to in Acts xix. 29, xx. 4), 
Stephanas, Achaicus, and Fortunatus do not occur in Acts 
(cf. 1 Cor. i, 11, 14-16, xvi. 15-17). The description of 
Apollos in Acts xviii, 24-28 in every way supplements 
what may be inferred concerning him from 1 Cor. 1. 
12-iv. 6, xvi. 12, but there is nothing to indicate that 
Luke had read Paul’s opinions concerning him and the 
results of his work. From the character of Luke’s book, 
which is intended to set forth the progress of missionary 
work—from chap. xiii, onwards, particularly Paul’s mis- 


124 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sionary labours—we should not expect an account of the 
internal development of the various Churches, nor of the 
heated conflicts concerning which we learn in 1 and 2 
Cor., nor of Paul’s journey from Ephesus to Corinth 
(vol. 1. 271), nor of the important journeys of Titus 
spoken of in 2 Cor. i. 18, vil. 6-16, vill. 16-24, xiL. 
17f., nor of the stay of Paul in Antioch (Gal. ii 11). 
But even when the development of missionary work led 
to transactions within the Church of such a nature that 
Luke does not leave them unnoticed, there is no evidence 
that he was influenced by Paul’s accounts of the same 
events. 

This is not the place in which to discuss the question 
whether, in view of Gal. ii. 1-10, Acts xv. 1-33 is to be 
regarded as historical. All that needs to be shown is that 
Luke had never read Gal. i. 1-10, or, at least, did not 
recall it when writing his own account. Here again the 
proof is to be found in the omission of features for the 
intentional suppression of which there is no conceivable 
motive, as well as in the absence of all traces of formal 
imitation, or of conscious denial, of what Paul had written. 
There is room enough in Acts xv. 2 for the statement that 
Paul made the journey to Jerusalem in consequence of a 
revelation (Gal. ii, 1), and this would be in perfect 
harmony with the spirit of Acts, where the co-operation 
of human reflection and effort with divine suggestion is 
frequently mentioned (cf. xvi. 6-10, xx. 16 with xx. 22, 
xix. 21 and xxv. 10 with xxiii. 11 and xxvii. 24; see 
above, p. 16 f.). It could not have been Gal. ii. 1-3 which 
influenced Luke to let Titus—whom he had mentioned, 
according to the 8 text, in xill. 1 (above, p. 354, n. 6)— 
disappear among the twés dddrot in Acts xv. 2. In Acts 
xv. 5 he himself relates how the demand that all Gentile 
Christians be circumcised was made in Jerusalem as in 
Antioch, and even if Luke, like some modern writers, mis- 
understood Paul—supposing him to mean that Titus was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 125 


circumcised out of deference to the Judaisers—in view of 
what is said in xvi. 3, Luke could not have objected to it. 
There was nothing about the Gentile missionaries’ recogni- 
tion of their duty to care for the poor in Jerusalem (Gal. 
ii. 10) that could displease him (cf. xi. 29f., xii. 25, 
xxiv. 17); and if he had wanted to mention still other 
stipulations not mentioned by Paul, he needed only to 
omit the povoyv in Gal. it. 10. No writer who had read 
Galatians with a view to informing himself from this first- 
hand source regarding these matters, could disregard 
altogether the impressive words, Gal. i. 7-9, in which 
Paul expressed the recognition received from Peter, John, 
and James of the standing and independence of his 
apostolic work. With regard to the apostolic decree, 
see above, p. 18 f., and below, § 62. 

The undeniable fact that Luke did not feel it necessary 
to draw from Paul’s letters as sources, or in any way to 
take account of them, in decisive proof of his close relation 
to the events recorded in Acts xiii-xxvill. Whether the 
author of Acts was a friend of Paul’s, or someone who 
wrote between 100 and 120, it is inconceivable that a 
Christian so deeply interested in Paul as was the author 
of Acts should have been ignorant of his letters, and, if 
they had come into his possession, that he should have 
left them unread. They made a deep impression, and 
attracted attention even among contemporaries outside 
the circle of those to whom they were originally ad- 
dressed (2 Cor. x. 10f.; 2 Pet. ii. 15f.5 vol. i, 276 ff.). 
From the close of the first century onwards, the letters of 
Paul came to be more and more the means by which the 
apostle’s memory was kept fresh in the mind of later 
generations (n. 24). The relation of Acts to the Pauline 
letters proves not only that the former was written before 
the close of the first century (§ 62), but also that its author 
was so close to the apostle, and had been associated with 
him so long, that it was not necessary for him to study 


126 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his letters in order to enlarge his own knowledge of the 
history. While, on any other hypothesis, the relation of 
the author of the Lucan history to the Pauline letters is 
an anomaly, the relation is perfectly natural, if it was 
written by Luke (or Timothy or Titus). The only source 
which a man like Luke required for the composition of 
Acts xili._xxviii., and also of Acts vi. 8—vili. 3, ix. 1-30, 
was his remembrance of what he had heard from Paul, 
and of events in which he had participated. Naturally, 
in the course of conversation Paul must frequently have 
spoken of his earlier experiences, and this is abundantly 
confirmed by his letters (1 Cor. ix. 1-6, xv. 3, 8, 32; 2 Cor. 
iy 8-10, xi. 22—xii. 9; Gal. 1. 11-1 14; Eph. nies 
Phil oii. 38-7, 1v. 3; 45-16 ; 1 Tim. 1 12-16;-1..7 5 ee 
7 3, ii, 10-11, iv.46-17; Rom.. xv. 16-32, svi 
Especially, in times of enforced idleness when Luke was 
with him, as, for example, during the second captivity in 
Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11), and during the winter months spent 
on the island of Malta, perhaps also during the two years’ 
imprisonment in Cesarea (above, p. 56), we cannot think 
of a more natural subject of conversation between the 
apostle and his friends than the experiences of the years 
when he had been fully occupied with his labours. Upon 
returning from missionary journeys, and on many other 
occasions, Paul and his companions must often have given 
before an assembled congregation a connected and detailed 
account of their experiences (Acts xiv. 27, xv. 3, 12, 26, 
Xx1.19; xa® éy &xaorov, Gal. ii. 3, 7-9). It is just as con- 
ceivable that some of those who heard these narratives, or 
that Luke, after such conversations, made notes of them, 
as that a Timothy or Silvanus kept a sort of daily journal 
during their travels, as did the author of the “we” 
passages, though, of course, it cannot be proved. 
Throughout Acts, as in xiii—xxviii., we note the 
absence of variations in the narrative, such as are 
naturally explained by the use of different sources im- 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 127 


perfectly worked over. It may seem peculiar that 
Agabus is introduced in xxi. 10 as if entirely unknown, 
although he has been introduced earlier in an exactly 
similar manner, xi. 28. But both notices (the first in 
the recension 8) are in “we” sections (above, p. 4, 
n. 3). It is, therefore, necessary to assume that in 
xxl. 10 the author either did not recall the cursory 
mention of Agabus which he had made earlier, or did 
not venture to assume that the reader still remembered 
it. Where this could be assumed, as in the case of 
Philip, xxi. 8, such references to earlier passages are to 
be found—in this particular instance to vi. 5 and viii. 
5-40. The substitution of the name Paul for Saul, in 
xill. 9, cannot be explained by supposing that at this 
point a new source, in which the apostle is called by 
his Roman name, takes the place of an earlier source 
in which he is called Saul. Such a new source could 
not well begin in the middle of an account of Paul’s 
sojourn in Paphos. A new account does begin with 
xi. 1, or perhaps xi. 25, but here we find the name 
Saul also, xii. 25, xiil. 1, 2, 7 (n. 25). Luke exchanges 
one name for the other, for reasons similar to those 
which led to the substitution of Peter for Simon (vol. ii. 
219, n. 9). As the apostle to the Gentiles, Paul had 
always been known by his Roman name, Paul. Hence 
it was appropriate that he should be so designated in 
Luke’s narrative at the point where he ceased to appear 
in the synagogues (xiii. 5, ix. 20-xxii. 29) and in the 
role of a teacher in congregations composed of Jews and 
Gentiles (xiii. 1, xi. 25-30), and became a teacher in the 
home of a Gentile in opposition to unbelieving Judaism 
(Acts xiii. 8-12). 

If some of the events narrated in Acts vi. 8—viil. 8, 
ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25-xxviil. 31 were experienced by 
Luke, and if he had such abundant opportunity to hear 
the account of others from those who were participants, 


128 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


so that, as seems to be the case, he felt no necessity for 
using written sources or literary helps in the preparation 
of these parts of his work, the question arises whether he 
was dependent at all upon earlier written sources in the 
preparation of his second book. If he was a guest of 
Philip for several days (xxi. 8-12), and if, during Paul’s 
two years’ imprisonment, he was with him even occa- 
sionally, he had in Philip the best possible witness for the 
events reeorded in vill. 4—40, also in vi. 1—vill. 3 and 
x, 1-xi. 18. What he relates in ix. 31-43 may have been 
learned from Mnason, who lived midway between Cesarea 
and Jerusalem, and who had been a disciple from the very 
earliest. times, Acts xxi. 16 (above, p. 18). If Luke was 
a member of the Church in Antioch when Barnabas came 
hither from Jerusalem and settled there, he had for a 
number of years the opportunity of hearing from him the 
story of the mother Church. That Barnabas would have 
occasion to relate this history is self-evident. It would 
also be a strange coincidence if, among the men of Cyprus 
and Cyrene, who in the year 35 fled from Jerusalem to 
Antioch, and there proclaimed the gospel for the first 
time to the Gentiles, there were not also those who had 
been baptized on the first Christian Pentecost (Acts xi. 
19f., xiii. 1; cf. 11.10, 41). Indeed, these men must have 
related to the younger Christians all they knew. And 
one of them, Lucius of Cyrene, was still alive when Luke 
wrote (above, p. 28, n. 6). So there were eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word from the beginning for the 
events narrated in Acts u.—v., from whom Luke could 
have obtained his information directly. It is possible 
that some one of these, or Barnabas, noted down at a 
comparatively early date recollections of what had taken 
place during the early years of the Church’s history. If 
Mark planned to extend his work to cover apostolic times 
(vol. ii. 479, above, p. 50), he may have left behind notes 
which he had gathered for the part of his book that was 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 129 


never written, and possibly these fell into Luke’s hand. 
But neither of these things can be proved. In order to 
explain the fact that there are more Hebraisms in i.—xii. 
than in xXill.—xxviil. (n. 26), it is not necessary to assume 
the use of written sources showing this characteristic, if 
Luke heard these narratives from Jewish Christians who 
were Palestinians, and had been in Palestine, and if he 
had sufficient literary sense in the narratives to retain 
their native colouring (above, p. 104f.). The assumption 
that the history of the early apostolic age was written in 
Hebrew or Aramaic (n. 27) is not only incapable of proof, 
but also extremely improbable; since the ‘‘ Hebrews” 
would have had very little occasion to use such a book, 
and the reasons which influenced Matthew to write in 
Aramaic (vol. ii. 521) would not apply in this case. A 
Greek like Luke would certainly not have been in a 
position to make use of such a book. Notwithstanding 
numerous attempts to distinguish different sources in 
Acts, this has never been shown to be even remotely 
probable (n. 28). The general outcome of such attempts 
is the conclusion that the author of the Lucan history, 
who was in reality a man of fine literary training, and 
an intelligent, thoughtful, and systematic writer, was a 
miserable bungler. They fail also to explain the tradition 
according to which Luke was the author of these writings, 
or to weaken the proofs of the correctness of this tradition 
which are to be found in the writings themselves. 


1. (P. 94.) M. Krenkel (Josephus wnd Lucas, 1894, S. 1ff.) discusses at 
length the sources upon which Luke depended. His method is not to be 
commended. In the section on “ Josephus’ influence upon the language of 
Luke,” S. 283 ff., the comparison, arbitrarily limited to these two writers and 
the LXX (with the exclusion of 1 and 2 Macc., books so very essential just 
at this point), is put in tabular form. But what value has the comparison 
when such words as alcOdvova, yijpas, djyos are found in a table purporting to 
sive the vocabulary which the three works have in common, or when words 
like Sopxds, dox7, epeidw, oreipos are included in a list of words supposed to 
sive the vocabulary of Luke and the LXX, not found in Josephus. More 
than this, the citation of the first of these words, dopkds, is incorrect (cf. Bell. 


VOL. III. 9 


130 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


iv. 3. 5 with Acts ix. 36). The only list of words which really belongs here 
is that of the words common to Luke and Josephus, not found in the LXX 
(S. 304-309). And this would be significant (1) only if very familiar words 
were excluded, such as are found quite universally in literature since Homer 
—as dyvwaoros, dvarpépa, éxeloe, pdyis, mepavéw, mhovs «TX. In this class 
belongs also airémrns, Luke i. 2, upon which Krenkel (S. 55, 56, 305) lays 
weight ; whereas it is used by Herodotus, iv. 16; Polybius, i. 4. 7, iii. 4. 18, 
and frequently—generally with yiveo@a, asin Luke. The last passage cited 
from Polybius (0a 1d trav mreiora@y pu povoy airémrns, GAN dy pev cvvepyés, 
dy 8€ kal xeupioris yeyovéva) can just as well as Jos. c. Apion, i. 10, be compared 
to Luke (see above, p. 82f.,n. 5). (2) It would also be necessary to omit all 
words, the use of which time or circumstance rendered impossible in the 
LXX, eg. dvOvmaros, koh@via, vewxdpos, pyrwp, «Baords, ouKdpios, oTparome- 
ddpxns. (3) It would also be necessary to compare other authors known not 
to be dependent upon Josephus, who might show points of resemblance to 
Luke in content and form: the O.T. Apocrypha, especially those portions of 
it which are of a narrative character, Philo, the other N.T. writers, the 
historians from Polybius to Herodian, also the medical writers whom Luke 
may have read (see above, pp. 32 f., 92, nn. 5, 28). It would be particularly 
necessary to make comparisons with Polybius, from whom such a writer 
as G. Raphelius, Annotat. in. s. script. ex Xenophonte, Polybio, etc., 1747, 
tom. i. 431-602 ; ii. 1-209, has collected much material. If this extended 
investigation should show a special resemblance between Luke and Josephus 
in language and style, it would naturally be explained by the fact that both 
are in a sense writers of Jewish history and contemporaries. Cf. A. Harnack, 
Lucas der Arzt als Verfasser des 3 Kv. und der AG, 1906 [Eng. trans. 1907] 
(Beitriige zur Hinl. in d. NT., 1 Heft) recetved too late for consideration. 

2. (P. 94.) In the matter of Josephus’ imperfect command of Greek, ef. 
Ant. xx. 12 (cf. also procem. § 2); as to literary assistance rendered him, ef. 
c. Ap. i. 9, ef. vol. i. 63, n. 9. On the other hand, regarding the style of 
Luke i. 1-4, cf. the conclusions of Blass, Nél. Gr. § 79. 6 (Eng. trans. § 79. 6) ; 
Vogel, 8. 18. 

3. (P. 96.) The present writer’s extended discussion of the Syrian 
governorship of Quirinius (VKZ, 1893, 8. 633-654) cannot here be quoted at 
length. When Schiirer, i. 542 (new, not in Eng. trans.), has nothing more to 
say against the writer’s “fascinating” argument than that, even if it be valid, 
“nothing of apologetic value would be gained,” his criticism is evidence of a 
lack of regard for an historical investigation, carried out without consideration 
of desired conclusions. The investigations of Ramsay, embodied in his book 
Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1898, have not as yet resulted in a perfectly 
clear conclusion. Cf. Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchos Papyri, ii. (1899) 
p- 207 ff., among others in Schiirer, i. 514, A. 21 (new, not in Eng. trans.). 
Worthy of note is Origen’s exposition of the matter, tom. xvii. 25 im Matt. 
which is probably dependent on Philo (cf. Forsch. vi. 304f.). Krenkel 
discusses the question without any attempt at a criticism of Josephus 
(S. 64-75). The vain effort to prove that rdca or 6dn 4 cikoupévn, Luke ii. ly 
Acts xi. 28, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14, Rev. iii. 10, xii. 9, xvi. 14, can mean Judea in 
Luke’s writings need not be here considered, since Krenkel does not think 
that Luke uses it in this sense. All examples of the use of the word cited 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 131 


prove that, in order to mean anything other than the whole world, 4 oikoupévy 
must have a modifier (Luke iv. 5; Acts xvii. 6, 31, xix. 27, xxiv. 5) such as 
tm av’rod Bacevopérn, Jos. Ant. xi. 6, 5 (a modification of the exaggerated 
expression in xi. 6. 2), or fs emnpxev, Ant. xix. 1. 2, or fs €BovAndn, se. 
kparjoa, Ant. xi. 6. 6. The word itself is used with a single general 
limitation—in other words, it is customary to treat the parts of the world 
which are civilised and ruled by the Romans as the world proper, and simply 
to designate them as such (Philo, Leg. ad Caz. i.), except where the context 
makes it necessary to say more accurately 7 xa@’ nuas olkovpévn, Ptolem. 
Geogr. ii. 1. 1, ef. § 2; Jos. Bell. 11. 16. 4 (Niese, 378), as contrasted with 
another érépa or d\An oikovpévn, Bell. i. 16. 4 (863), Ant. iv. 6.8. Of. the 
distinction made by us between the old world and the new world, «.e. the 
more recently discovered world—a distinction which is disappearing. The 
limitation of the meaning in Luke 1. 1 to the world ruled by the Romans is 
clear from the very character of the statement made ; similarly in Acts ii. 28 
it is expressed by the name of the Emperor. The same exaggeration of 
statement is to be found in Paul’s writings, Col. i.6; Rom. x. 18; 1 Tim. 
iii. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 17. This, however, is to be said with reference to the 
alleged unhistorical character of the statement in Acts xi. 28: the scarcity of 
food, and the consequent rise in its price in Rome in 41-43 a.p., and again in 
51 (Dio Cass. lx. 11; Tac. Ann. xii. 43; cf. Anger, De temp. in Actis ratione, 
42), must have been due to repeated failure of crops in Egypt, which would 
increase the price of grain in other lands. There is also to be considered in 
this connection the reports regarding conditions in Palestine (Jos. Ant. iii. 
15, 3, xx. 2. 5, 5.2) and Greece (Eus. Chron. Anno Abr. 2064, cf. ad 2057). In 
a metrical inscription from Apollonia in the province of Galatia (Le Bas- 
Waddington, Asie min. No. 1192=C. I. G. 39738), dating possibly from the year 
57 a.p. (Ramsay, Stud. Oxon. iv. 1896, p. 52 ff.), is found the following: ére 
BovBpactis kara yatav oapKoBdpos Sewn te, Pdvov BpeiOovoa aduktov, Kda pov 
éméoxebe wavra. Even if the date of the inscription be considered uncertain, 
because of the impossibility of determining exactly the period to which it 
belongs, the text does show how educated people in imperial times were 
accustomed to speak of such calamities. The carping critic must also admit 
that Luke uses the language to which exception is taken only in reproducing 
the prophecy of Agabus, he himself adding merely the brief remark that this 
was fulfilled under Claudius. No details are added, which show how nearly 
the events corresponded to the letter of the prophecy. This fact Theophilus 
and every contemporary knew better than Overbeck and Krenkel. How one- 
sided Krenkel is in his treatment of this problem appears on S. 281, where 
the frequently noticed parallelism between Josephus (Vita, 3) and Paul’s 
voyage to Rome (Acts xxvii.-xxviii.) is passed over without further discussion, 
and the dependence of Luke upon Josephus in this passage is denied, on the 
ground that Acts xxvii. and xxviii. are the report of an eye-witness. Both 
authors agree in the following points: (1) The dangerous journey by sea 
from Palestine to Italy ; (2) the extreme dangers in the Adriatic Sea, and by 
night (Acts xxvii. 27); (8) the loss of the ship (Acts xxvii. 27, 41-44) ; (4) 
the transfer from one ship to another during the journey (Acts xxvii. 6, to an 
Alexandrian ship; Josephus, to a Cyrenean ship); (5) landing at Puteoli. 
It is an unimportant difference in the accounts that Paul made his journey 


132 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


in the autumn of 60, Josephus in the autumn of 64. Nor is the resemblance 
rendered less striking by other differences, such as that in the size of the 
crews, Paul’s sojourn in Malta, etc. 

4, (P.97.) C.J. L. v. i. No. 186* : de Rossi, Bull. di arch. Christ. 1880, 
p. 174 and plate ix.; Mommsen, Ephem. Hpigr. iv. (1881) 8. 537-542 ; alse 
the present writer’s essay quoted above, n. 3, NKZ, 1893, 8. 647f. 

5. (P. 98.) It is hardly necessary to prove that the Herod referred to 
in Luke i. 5 can be no other than Herod the Great, who died in March of 
4 B.c. (Matt. ii. 1-19). Agrippa 1. (37-44 a.pD.), who is also called Herod in 
Acts xii. 1-23, and Agrippa 11. (Acts xxv. 13 [50 to 93 or 100 a.pD.]) are 
entirely out of the question. It is also inconceivable that Luke should have 
called by the title “King Herod” the Archelaus, who governed a part of 
Palestine from 4 B.c. to 6 A.D. under the title of ethnarch. For, in the first 
place, Luke always employs exact titles in designating the rulers of this 
house, iii. 1, 19, ix.'7; Acts xii. 1, xxv. 13 (cf. per contra vol. ii. 503, n. 3); in 
the second place, the name Herod is never substituted for that of Archelaus — 
either by Josephus or in the N.T. (cf. Matt. ii. 22) (Schiirer, i. 450 [Eng. trans. 
I. ii. 39). 

6. (P. 99.) The more noticeable resemblances between Jos. and Acts in 
points of detail are the following: (1) Theudas, Acts v. 36, Ant. xx. 5.1. 
The question cannot be here discussed whether the same individual is 
referred to in both passages, or whether, as Wieseler (Chronol. Synopse, 103 f. ; 
Bettrdge, 101f.) endeavours to show, the Theudas of Luke is identical with 
the Matthias in Jos. Ant:xvii. 6; Bell. i. 33. Whether Luke himself com- 
posed the speech of Gamaliel, or took it from some older writing, he certainly 
was of the opinion that the insurrection under Theudas took place a long 
time before the speech in question, namely, before the insurrection of Judas 
and the one famous taxing, which in Luke ii. 2 he places between 4and 1 8.0. 
(above, p. 94 ff.). According to Josephus, the insurrection under Theudas 
was put down by the procurator Fadus in 45 a.p.—a date considerably later 
than Gamaliel’s speech, and from forty to fifty years later than the insurrec- 
tion under Judas. The account in Josephus cannot be accepted as of 
unquestionable trustworthiness. Josephus was at the time a child between 
seven and nine years of age. Moreover, his reports of the history of this 
period are extremely meagre ; the story about Theudas is a very isolated 
supplement to the description of Fadus’ procuratorship in xx. 1, and is 
separated from it by the long episode in xx. 2. 1-4. 4. If Josephus is right 
and Luke wrong, at all events it could not have been Josephus that misled 
Luke into this chronological error of half a century. No credence is to be 
given Krenkel’s hypothesis (163 ff.) that the mention of the sons of this Judas 
in the following paragraph of Josephus (xx. 5. 2) caused the confusion of 
father and sons in Luke’s mind,—leading him to suppose that the insurrection 
of Theudas followed that of Judas. For in this case Luke must have over- 
looked or forgotten the fact that Josephus, a few lines before, had mentioned 
the great famine—which, as Luke knew, took place under Claudius (Acts 
xi. 28)—as well as the names of the procurators, Cuspius, Fadus, Tiberius 
Alexander, Cumanus, and the name of the Emperor Claudius in Ant. xx. 
5. 1-2. Furthermore, the agreement between the two narratives is so slight 
as to leave it only probable that Josephus and Luke are referring to the same 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS = 133 


event. According to Josephus, Theudas is a juggler, who pretends to be a 
prophet, leads his followers to the Jordan, and promises by a miracle to 
render easy the passage of the river. He is beheaded by a company of cavalry, 
who destroy part of his company and take the rest prisoners, and his head is 
sent to Jerusalem. It will be seen that much is wanting in Luke’s account 
besides the name of Fadus. The number of followers which Luke gives 
(400) could not have been suggested by Joseph 6 wAcioros dxXos, and only 
frequently used words are common to the two accounts (Luke dvypé6n, Jos. 
avethev, Luke éeiOovto, Jos. éreibe,). (2) The death of King Agrippa 1, 
Acts xii, 19-23; Jos. Ant. xix. 12. In passages that precede and follow, 
Josephus calls him Agrippa. In this passage he calls him simply “the 
King”; Luke says “Herod.” According to Josephus, the occasion of his 
death was a feast of several days in honour of the saving of the Emperor, at 
which the distinguished persons of the region were gathered ; according to 
Luke, it was the presence of a number of Syrians and Sidonians, who, on 
account of their dependence upon the King’s country for their supply of 
grain, through the chief chamberlain, Blastus, begged peace of the enraged 
monarch. According to Josephus, the King appeared in the theatre on the 
second day of the feast; according to Luke, he delivered an oration to the 
ambassadors before all the people, on a day appointed with the Syrians for 
the discussion of the matter. While Josephus describes in detail the splendid 
garments of the King, and the reflection of the morning sun upon them (cf. per 
contra Luke, ver. 21), and represents the flatterers of the court as proposing 
in well-turned phrases an apotheosis of the King, Luke produces a greater 
effect by the use of five words, in which he gives the exclamations of the 
people. In place of Luke’s impressive conclusion of the scene in ver, 23, 
Josephus gives the following account: Suddenly Agrippa saw an owl sitting 
upon a rope, and, because of an earlier experience with an owl which he had 
had in Rome, recognised at once that it was a messenger (dyyeAdov) of death 
(Ant. xviii. 6. 7). He was seized with severe pains in the abdomen, delivered 
a philosophical discourse to his friends, was carried into the palace, was 
deeply moved by the sympathy of the people, and died five days later. It is 
perfectly clear to everyone that each story has as its basis an entirely 
independent tradition, and it requires no great exercise of one’s historical 
sense to understand that Luke has reproduced more successfully than 
Josephus the spirit in which the event was recounted by those who witnessed 
it. The “ Angel of the Lord,” which the Gentile Luke represents as acting, 
is more natural in the story of the death of a Jewish King in Palestine than 
the discourses about mortal nature and fate which the Jew Josephus represents 
the King as delivering. The very fact that Josephus calls the owl an 
“ @yyedos” in a different sense from which it is used in Luke’s account, would 
seem to indicate familiarity with the popular account of Jewish contem- 
poraries. Christian writers have transformed the owl again into what it 
was originally, a real angel (cf. Eus, H. H. ii. 10.6). (3) The Egyptian, Acts 
xxi. 38; Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 6, Bell. ii. 13. 5. It is possible that Luke may have 
taken his short notice, which, however, is connected with another event in a 
manner hardly to be considered as invented, from the longer accounts of 
Josephus ; but there is nothing to prove it. Nothing in Jos. indicates that 
the followers of the Egyptian were Stcariz. Indeed, Josephus describes the 


134. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


activity of this body in an entirely different way (Ant. xx. 13. 3, Bell. ii. 8. 10), 
and does not connect them at all with the Egyptian. Their number in Luke, 
4000, agrees neither with the 400+200 of Ant. xx. 8. 6, nor with the 30,000 
of Bell. ii. 13. 5. (The other points in which the accounts agree prove nothing 
as to the dependence of one author upon another. Luke cannot win the 
favour of the critics. When he differs from Josephus, he errs or fabricates ; 
when he agrees with him, he copies; what he omits or adds is due to 
arbitrariness or misunderstanding ; but Josephus is always infallible. 

7. (P. 100.) The question whether, before completing his Antiquities and 
writing his Vita, Josephus read Luke’s work, cannot be answered without 
entering at length into Josephus’ attitude toward the religious life of his 
people, the Messianic expectation, and the Christian movement. He did not 
understand this movement any more than would the rich, worldly, and 
heartless Jew of our own time. But he knew ten times more about it than 
he says. The famous testimony to Christ is put into his mouth by someone 
else, and there is a suspicion that the same is true of the statement about 
James, the brother of the so-called Christ; cf. Forsch. vi. 301-305. A con- 
venient starting-point for the discussion of this question is the chapter on 
John, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, which Gritz (Gesch. d. Juden®, iii. 294) declares to be 
a forgery, while Ranke (Weltgesch.! iii. 1. 161, 2. 39) uses it as a principal 
source, instead of the gospel account. It is an episode at the beginning and 
end, of which regard is had for the popular way of treating history, 
characteristic of certain Jews. It is senseless to suppose that Antipas feared 
that John would create a popular uprising, if at the same time he exhorted 
the people only to righteousness and piety, because this leaves out of account 
altogether the preaching of the nearness of the Kingdom of God and the fire 
of judgment. When Josephus makes John teach that men ought to be 
baptized, ‘not in order to apologise for certain offences,” there is implied a 
direct rejection of the Christian tradition, according to which he preached a 
Barricpa peravoias eis dbeow duapridy (Luke iii.3; Marki.4f.). If Josephus 
had read Luke iii. 10-14, it explains the very moderate moral teaching 
which he puts into the mouth of the Baptist. The variation in the statements 
about Quirinius in the Antiquities from the earlier account in Bell. (above, 
p. 96) is explained, if between these writings Josephus had read Luke ii. 2. 
It is noteworthy, moreover, that the two important parallels between 
Jos. and Acts are to be found only in the Antiquities, not in Bell. ; see n. 6. 
The story (Vita, 2) of the fourteen years old Josephus, whose advice was 
sought by the high priests on questions of the law, has the appearance of 
being a grotesque imitation of the incomparable story in Luke ii. 41-52. The 
present writer has no desire to argue with one whose taste permits him to 
regard the reverse relation as possible. 

8. (P. 100.) Concerning the secular yaipev, Acts xv. 23 and Jas. i. 1, 
which is almost contemporaneous, see vol. i. 119, n. 7. To this corresponds 
éppooo, xv. 29—the verb is not found in the N.T. (in xxiii. 30 it is probably 
spurious). Leaving out of account expressions required by the subject under 
discussion, this short message contains the following words not found else- 
where in the writings of Luke or the N.T. (the latter are indicated by *), 
dvackevdets, SiaoréddeoOat (only five times in the writings of Mark, a native 
of Jerusalem) ; ¢mdvayxes*, ed mpdrrew*, of dyamnrol juadv, without ddeddol ; 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 135 


the appositional adepoi* after rpecBirepor, undoubtedly the correct reading. 
On the other hand, 6uo6vpaddv, which is used 8 or 9 times in Acts, but never 
with yiverOar; dSuatnpeiv, not as used in Luke ii. 51, but in an essentially 
different sense, and éreid:) neovocapev—edokev jpiv, ver. 24f. (cf. Luke i. 1-3), 
need hardly be taken into account. 

9. (P. 101.) Julius Africanus in Eus. H. #.i.'7. 7-15. The Seamdovvor 
drew partly from family traditions, partly from chronicles ; see ZKom. Matt. 
44f. A. 7. 

10. (P. 104.) To Luke the use of the article, with both the name and 
the title of Isaiah in Mark i. 2, seemed harsh, as did also the bare phrase, 
“in Isaiah” (cf. Rom. ix. 25, xi. 2). One reads “Isaiah” (Acts viii. 28, 30; 
ef. xv. 21) as he does “ Homer,” but “ the book of the prophet Isaiah” (Luke 
iv. 17) is handed to him, and when this and other books are quoted, reference 
is made to the book (Luke iii. 4, xx. 42; Acts i. 20, vii. 42). Because 
Theophilus is not entirely familiar with the work, it is remarked, in con- 
nection with the first quotation from it, that the book is a collection of the 
sayings of the prophet mentioned (Luke iii. 4). 

11. (P. 104.) Outside of chaps. iii. in the narratives peculiar to Luke, 
but certainly not created by him, we find such expressions as 6 oixovduos 
THs adikias, XV1. 8; 6 paywvas rhs ad., xvi. 9 (ver. 11 is different) ; 6 Kpurijs 
THs ao.) XV1ll. 6; €v Trois daiv, eis ra Sra, Luke iv. 21, ix. 44; Acts xi. 22; 
idov or cat idov (not in quotation) 56 times in the Gospel, 23 times in Acts, 
often where it is not found in the parallels in Mark (found in this Gospel 
only 8 or 10 times), frequently wanting also in Matt., Luke v. 12 (=Matt. 
viii. 2, not Mark i. 40); v. 18 (= Matt. ix. 2, not in Mark ii. 3); vi. 23 (mot 
in Matt. v. 12); ix. 30 (= Matt. xvii. 3, not in Mark ix. 4); ix. 38, 39 (not 
in Matt. xvii. 15; Mark ix. 15). Passages without parallel: vii. 12, 37, 
x. 19, 25, xi. 41, xiil. 7, 11, ete. Noticeable is the frequent occurrence of 
kat éyévero or éyévero Oé (often with év 7é, followed by the infinitive or 
as 7#kovoev and similar expressions, or with a statement of time). This is 
found in a number of different constructions: (a) followed by the principal 
verb, without xai, i. 8, 23, 41, 59, 11. 1, 15, 46, vil. 11, vili. 40, ix. 18, 
Bomaigext. , 14, 27, xvii, 14, xviii. 3d, xix. 295 xx. 1); °(6) with) Kas vale 
12, 17, viii. 1, 22, ix. 51, x. 38, xvil. 11, xxiv. 4, 15; (c) followed by the 
infinitive with the accusative, iii. 21, vi. 1, 6, 12, xvi. 22. Of these con- 
structions only the third, which is (in the first place) found in vulgar Greek, 
also occurs in Acts and very frequently (iv. 5, ix. 3, 32, 37, 43, xiv. 1, 
Xviv16, xix. 1, xxi. 1, 5, xxii. 6, 17, xxvii. 44, xxvill. 8, 17; about xi. 26 
there may be a question). The second construction (0) is the most 
Hebraistic of the three, especially in constructions like Luke xiv. 1, cai 
eyévero, ev TH EOciv adrdv ... Kal adrol joav ... Kal idov, cf. vi. 1, 2, 
xxiv. 4. It is avoided altogether by Mark and Matt. The only one of the 
constructions used by Matt. is (a) vii. 28, ix. 10 (where the correct reading 
is i8od without «ai), xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi.1; Mark uses it twice, 1. 9, 
iv. 4; also (6) ii. 15, 23, twice. 

12. (P. 105.) For the use of «dvs in Mark see vol. ii. 482. Luke uses 
ei0éos appropriately, also sapaypjya, which is found outside of Luke’s 
writings (Gospel 10 times, Acts 6 times) only in Matt. xxi. 19f. The 
strong Hebraism in Mark vi. 39 is removed in Luke ix. 14, as are also the 


136 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Aramaic words and names, Mark iii. 16, 18, v. 41, ix. 5, x. 46, 51, xi. 10, 
xii. 43, xiv. 32, 36, 45, xv. 22, 34. In some cases translations are substi- 
tuted : ¢yrorjs, Luke vi. 15 (Acts i. 13); 9 mais éyetpov, vill. 54; €morara, 
ix. 33 (v. 5, viii. 45, ix. 49, xvii. 13, where there are no parallels; viii. 24 
for dddoxade); Kvpe, xviii. 41 (for paBBovvi), adnOds, xxi. 3 (for aunv 
removed in xxii. 18 altogether, used only 6 or 7 times in the Gospel). In 
other cases the Hebrew or Aramaic word, or name, is simply stricken out, 
xix. 38, xxii. 40, 42, 47, xxiii. 33. In Luke’s writings are found the 
following Hebrew words: dyjy, iv. 24, xii. 37, etc. (used by Jesus only in 
connection with Aéyo ipiv, hence not found in Acts) ; BeedCeBovA, xi. 15-19 
(with explanation); yéevva, xii. 5 (but in xvi. 23 Gdns); maoxa, il. 41 
(4 €opr} rod m., as in Matt. and Mark); xxii. 1 (with detailed explanation), 
ef. Acts xii. 3, 4, xxii. 7-15; od8Barov and cdSBara, often in the sense of 
week, xviii. 12, xxiv. 1; Acts xvii. 2, xx. 7, vol. i. 212, n.5; 5 times in the 
Gospel, twice in Acts (also S:d8o0dos from 4 to 6 times in the Gospel ; twice 
in Acts); oixepa indeclinable, Luke i. 15 (Isa. xxiv. 9 nom. Num. vi. 3 gen., 
Deut. xiv. 26, Cod. AF dat., Lev. x. 9 acc.). Luke and Theophilus, who 
lived in Antioch, were probably familiar with the Syriac words papevas, 
xvi. 9-13, and Bdros, xvi. 6 (more correctly written Bddouvs, NLX, Epiph. 
Mens. xxii. 4. 10, which is the source of the reading in D xadovs), cf. vol. 
i. 18; regarding the use of Syriac in and about Antioch see Forsch. i. 40 ff. 
13. (P. 104.) The expression ayOp. év mvevpart axafdpro in Mark i. 23, 
v. 2 is improved in Luke iv. 33, vili. 27. In two instances ¢& adrod 
following ¢é&eAdciv, Mark i. 25f., ischanged into dz’ adrod, iv. 35 (ef. iv. 41, 
v. 8, viii. 29, 33, 35, 38, 46; Acts xvi. 18, xix. 12); 4 dxo} adrod, Mark i. 28, 
is replaced by jyos mepi avrov, Luke iv. 37; in two cases xpdSaros, Mark 
ii. 4, 11, is replaced by xAwidiov in Luke v. 19, 24, left out altogether in 
v. 23 (Mark ii. 9) and reproduced by a circumlocution in v. 25 (Mark ii. 12), 
while the word is tolerated in Acts v. 15 (along with xAwdpia) and ix. 33. 
For words and phrases in parallels in Mark, not altogether polished in 
character, Luke substitutes the following (those not occurring elsewhere 
in the N.T. are marked with an *): mapddofa*, v. 26; dSoyn, v. 29 (also 
xiv. 13), tysaivovres, v. 31 (also vil. 10, xv. 27); ixpas*, vill. 6; déyeoOar, 
vill. 13 ; dmodéyer Oar, vill. 40, ix. 11 (used similarly 3 or 4 times in Acts) ; 
rereopopeiv®, vill. 14; doxet Exe, Vill. 18; cuvruxety twc*, vill. 19; dAiuvn, 
viil. 22, 23 (also v. 1, 2, viii. 33 always instead of @d\acoa in Mark and 
Matt. and John, of the sea of Gennesaret) ; Supyeto@a, viii. 39, ix. 10 (Acts 
ix. 27, xil. 17, duyynows, Luke i. 1); mpocavadocaca ddov tov Bio, viii. 48 ; 
dtamopeiv, ix. 7 (Acts v. 24, x. 17; in the middle voice in ii. 12); Bpépn for 
mawia, xviii. 15 (i. 41, 44, ii. 12,16; Acts vii. 19); efexpéuero adirod dxovar*, 
xix. 48; dva@nuact* kexdopnra, xxi. 5; mpopederav®, xxi. 14; amodoyeir bat, 
xxi. 14 (xii. 11, 6 times in Acts). For medical terms cf. § 62. While Luke 
does not avoid altogether Latin terms, such as docdpioy, xii. 6; Snvdptov, 
vil. 41, x. 35; Aeyimy, Vill. 30; Kaioap (in the Gospel 6 times, in Acts 
10 times), which are found also in the other Gospels, he does avoid KevTUplov 
(Mark, Luke has instead éxardvrapyos, vii. 2, 6, xxiii. 47, 13 or 14 times in 
Acts) covoredia (Matt., but cf. Acts xii. 4); xjvoos (Matt., Mark for which 
Luke xx. 22, xxiii, 2 has gdpos) ; xoSpdvrns (Matt., Mark for which Luke 
xxi. 2 has vo Aewrd, which in Mark xii. 42 is given as the equivalent of one 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS = 137 


quadrans, vol. ii. 504; Eéorns (Mark); omexovAdrwp (Mark); rirdos (John) ; 
ppayeddovy (Matt., Mark), see vol. ii. 504. In Luke xx. 24 probably the 
correct reading is vouicua instead of Snvdpiov. Neither does Luke use 
mparopiov designating the guard in the passion history (Matt., Mark, John), 
but only in Acts xxiii. 35. In Acts we have colonia (xvi. 12) and sécarié 
(xxi. 38). Otherwise Luke uses Greek names for everything Roman 
(officials, the military, etc.): dv@daros, iyeumv, iycuovevew, tyepovia, 
orparoredov, orpatomeddpyxns, oTpareverOa (orparid, Luke ii. 13; Acts vii. 42 
applied to the world of spirits), yAcapyos (so used elsewhere only in John 
xvill. 12; in Mark vi. 21, Rev. vi. 15 more indefinite) ; oeipa (of cohorts, 
Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1, also in Matt., Mark, John); rerpddvov orpariwrav (Acts 
xli. 4) ; deEcohdBos (Acts xxiii. 23); mapeuBorn (elsewhere only in Heb. and 
Rey.). Likewise for Jewish officials and authorities Luke uses only Greek 
titles: orparnyds (xxii. 4, 52; Acts iv. 1, v. 24, 26); yepovoia (Acts v. 21) ; 
vopixos (6 times elsewhere, only in Matt. xxii. 35); vopodddoxados (Luke 
v.17; Acts v. 34). 

14, (P. 108.) For the Hebrew and Aramaic words in Luke’s writings 
see n. 12. On Akeldama see vol. i. 28; on Barnabas, vol. i. 30. The 
translation of the word Tabitha only (Acts ix. 36) is unquestionably correct 
(cf. Jos. Bell. iv. 3. 5). In xiii. 8 the text is obscure, ef., however, NKZ, 
xv. 195 ff. To the mind of the present writer, Klostermann (Probleme im 
Apostelt. S. 18) has, with great probability, proved that peyddn, Acts viii. 10, 
was originally xbap or *ban (“The Revealer”), which Luke has misunderstood. 

15. (P. 109.) In the parallels between Matt., Mark, Luke there are a 
few words in which Luke agrees with Matt. against Mark. But in the case 
of the more important of these there is a suspicion about the correctness of 
the text, ¢.g. as 7 addy, Luke vi. 10 (omitted by NBL, Old Lat. and Copt.) 
= Matt. xii, 13, not found in Mark iii. 5; like the preceding tyms, which 
likewise is genuine only in Matt., it has crept into the text of Luke, only 
at an earlier date, and, therefore, is found more generally in the MSS. 
Other agreements may be due to the fact that the translator of Matt. and 
Luke both made the same changes in the clumsy language of Mark; in 
which process the former may have been influenced by the latter ; cf. vol. ii. 
BTAE, 594. 

16. (P. 111.) Matt. iv. 1-11 and Luke iv. 1-13 must be based upon a 
report by Jesus to His disciples, and this is confirmed by Matt. xii. 29; 
Mark iii. 27; Luke xi. 21f.; also by Luke x. 18, when this saying is rightly 
understood ; cf. ZKom. Matt. 147 f. 

17. (P. 112.) Feine (Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Le. 1891) con~ 
structs, on the basis of material found only in Luke, a Jewish Christian 
“source,” %.e. a source which originated in the Christian Church in 
Palestine before 70, peculiar to Luke. This fourth source Luke used in 
addition to the other sources, which in learned fashion he adopted, namely, 
(1) Mark; (2) “The original synoptic document” (following B. Weiss) ; 
(3) “Sayings” (Logia). But, according to Feine, Luke probably found this 
fourth source already combined with the third. In Acts i. 1-viii. 24, ix. 31- 
xi. 23, xii. 1-24 he finds essentially unaltered a writing closely related to 
this fourth source, “ possibly ” (S. 236, 244) in some way combined with it 
into a whole, 


138 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18. (P. 114.) It is to be assumed that the subordinate characters in 
the gospel history, who are mentioned by name in the Gospels (Jairus, 
Bartimzus, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander, Rufus, Nicodemus, Lazarus) were 
more or less widely known in the apostolic age as members of the Church, 
as was also the rich, small statured chief publican of Jericho. According 
to Clement, Hom. iii. 64-71; Recogn. iii. 65-68; cf. Hom. ii. 1, xvii. 1. 6; 
Recogn. ii. 1, he became bishop of Ceesarea. Of the fifteen Jewish Christian 
bishops of Jerusalem before 132 or 135 the fourth to be mentioned is a 
Zaccheus (Eus. H. EL. iv. 5. 3), or, according to Epiph. Her. Ixvi. 20, 
Zacharias, which, however, is only the full Hebrew form for the Aramaic 
abbreviation; cf. Dalman, Aram. Gr.2 178. For further discussion of the 
subject see Forsch. vi. 291 f., 300. 

19. (P. 114.) Luke x. 30-37 is freer from Semiticisms than other 
passages peculiar to this Gospel. In xv.-xvi., xviii. 1-14 also, notwith- 
standing thoroughly Jewish expressions and ideas (xv. 18, 21, 24, 32, 
xvi. 8, 9 [n. 11], 22, xviii. 6), a fairly good style is to be observed. 
Naturally one speaks of heaven and hell (xvi. 22f., xxiii. 43) in a different 
way than of the happenings of a journey and of inns (x. 30-35). 

20. (P. 117.) J. Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, 1848, 
3rd ed. 1866; A. Breusing, director of the naval academy in Bremen 
(Die Nautik der Alten, 1886, S. 142-205). In his introduction, p. xiii, 
Breusing says: “The most valuable nautical document preserved to us 
from antiquity is the description of the sea journey and shipwreck of the 
apostle Paul. Every seaman recognises at once that it must have been 
written by an eye-witness.” Th. Mommsen (Svtzungsber. d. berl. Ak. 1895, 
S. 503) has not increased his reputation by his scornful remark, that “ Luke 
speaks of the Adriatic Sea in the vicinity of Crete, and of the Barbarians 
on the island of Malta.” Even Strabo (pp. 123, 317) knows ’ASpias to be the 
common name of the Adriatic proper and of the Ionian sea; and in 
Ptolemeeus (ili. 4. 1, cf. Pausan. viii. 54. 2) it includes also the Sicilian 
(or Ausonian) sea. Just as Strabo (p. 123) remarks that the Sicilian sea 
reaches to the western end of Crete and to the Peloponnesus, so Ptolemzus 
says (iii. 17. 1) that Crete is bounded on the west by the Adriatic sea. 
Luke, whose chronological position is between Strabo and Ptolemeeus, had 
no more occasion than did Josephus (Vita, 3) to make an accurate geo- 
graphical statement regarding the scope of the term ’Adpias, but, like 
Ptolemeus and Josephus, he seems to have made it include the entire sea 
lying between Crete and Sicily (Acts xxvii. 27); for during the fourteen 
days (xxvii. 27, 33) after land was lost sight of on the south-west coast of 
Crete, namely, the island Cauda (xxvii. 16 B vg, also S! not Clauda, called 
now Gavdos or Gozzo), until shortly before the stranding of the ship on 
Malta it was tossed about in the Adriatic sea. Mommsen’s mocking remark 
deserves even less credence than the claim that Luke included Malta in the 
Adriatic sea, upon which W. Falconer (Dissertat. on St. Paul’s Voyage and 
on the Apostles Shipwreck on the Island of Melite, 1817,. 2nd ed., by Th. 
Falconer, 1870) based the hypothesis that Melite is to be identified with the 
modern Meleda, on the Illyricum coast. But the inference would be wrong 
in any case (cf. Breusing, S. 150). Procopius (de Bell. Vand. i. 14) makes 
the islands of Gaulos and Malta the boundary between the Adriatic and 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 139 


Tyrrhenian seas. That Luke’s view was the same cannot be proved. It 
would be pedantic, in order to make Luke agree with Ptolemeeus (iii. 4. 1, 
ef. iv. 3. 47), to require him to say that during the last of the fourteen days 
the ship passed the longitude of Cape Pachynos, so that when Paul landed 
on Malta he was no longer in the Adriatic (Siculum) sea, but in the African 
sea. With reference to the BdpBapor on the island of Melita (Acts xxviii. 
1, 4), it is difficult to understand how Mommsen knows that in the year 60 
the Punic language had died out on this island, which was long a part of the 
dominions of Carthage—its name Melita being in fact a Punic name—and 
was also an old Pheenician colony (Movers, Die Phénizier, ii. 2. 347-358 ; 
ef. the inscriptions in Schroder, Die phon. Sprache, S. 232-235), especially in 
view of the fact that on the mainland opposite there were extensive regions 
where it remained the dominant language until within the fifth century 
(GK, i. 40-42 ; Movers in Ersch and Gruber, Hncyc., article “‘ Phonizien,” 
433f.). Of the twelve existing coins which were struck on the island of 
Malta between the time of Roman annexation (218 B.c.) and Augustus 
(A. Mayr, Dre antiken Munzen der Inseln Malta, Gozzo, and Pantelleria, 
Miinchen, 1894, especially S. 18f.), numbers 1 to 4 are Punic, from 5 to 10 
are Greek and Latin, and 12 is Latin. Punic and Greek coins were struck 
cotemporaneously. All that Luke says is that the fishermen, sailors, and 
peasants whom those who were shipwrecked first met did not know Greek. 
On account of the close connection between Punic and ancient Hebrew, it is 
quite possible that Paul understood at once the words of the Barbarians 
(xxviii. 4). The landed proprietor Publius, with whom those who were 
shipwrecked, or at least part of them,—among these the three Christians 
in the company,—spent three days as guests, and most of the inhabitants of 
the city where they spent three months (xxviii. 11) may have understood 
and spoken Latin, or Greek, or both. Luke shows his knowledge of 
actual conditions in Malta by the use of the title 6 mparos ris viycov, 
xxviii. 7, which is attested for this island by C. I. G. No. 5754=Kaibel 
I. G. Sicilia, No. 601: immeds “‘Popalav, mpatos Mediraiwy kal mdrpeov. 
C. I. L. x. No. 7495, municiptr Melitensium primus omniwm, according 
to the addenda to this inscription, p. 994, dating from the first or second 
century. 

21. (P. 118.) The literary relation of Acts to the letters of Paul is not 
carefully investigated by those critics, who are most under obligation to do 
so, because of the late date which they assign to Acts, and because of the 
conscious modification of the Pauline history which they assume. ZuLLER 
speaks very incidentally (S. 518f.) of “the Pauline letters,” and especially 
of Gal., as sources of Acts. OVERBECK (p. lix) claims in a mere remark—as 
if this question were not of fundamental importance in any critical estimate 
of Acts, that while as a matter of course Luke was acquainted with the 
genuine Epistles of Paul, as evidenced by ix. 19-30, xv. 1-33, xviii. 24-28, 
these Epistles were “not among the sources of Acts.” There is, however, 
nothing added to explain this, which Overbeck calls “a characteristic fact.” 
JACOBSEN (Quellen der AG, 1885, S. 8 ff.), on the other hand, represents the 
author of Acts as elaborating the most important statements and narratives 
even of chaps. i.-xii. from the hints in Paul’s letters, while Srmox (Gal. 1888, 
S. 78-151) thinks that he is able to show that the author of the four “chief 


140 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Epistles” presupposed and utilised Acts and perhaps even the Gospel of 
Luke (S. 191-211). 

22. (P. 119.) The reading émiorodny for éevrodny (Acts xvii. 15 ES}, 
“And when they parted from him they received from him a letter to Silas 
and Timothy”) is untrustworthy, and, if genuine, would refer to a lost 
letter. 

23. (P. 121.) Paul refers to his Pharisaism in the description of his 
condition before conversion, Phil. iii. 5f.; Gal.i.14; Luke does not refer 
to this until much later, and then in a different connection, Acts xxiii. 6, 
xxvi. 5, and the expression (nAwr7s trdpyor, Gal. i. 14=Acts xxii. 3, is not 
at all striking ; cf. Acts xxi.20. There is nothing in Luke which reminds 
us of the bold figure in 1 Cor. xv. 8. The fact that besides the more 
common S&ioxew (1 Cor. xv. 9; Gal. i. 18, 23; Phil. ii. 6; 1 Tim. i. 18) 
mopOetv is used twice by Paul (Gal. i. 13, 23) and once by Luke (Acts ix. 21) 
proves nothing; Philo also, ¢. Flacc. viii., calls the Jew haters in Alexandria 
mopOetv Iovdaiovs. In the description of the flight from Damascus in Acts 
ix. 24f. and 2 Cor. xi. 32 all the words are different, until the designation of 
the city wall, which it was necessary for both to mention, and except yaar, 
which is used by Luke elsewhere (Luke v. 4,5; Acts xxvii. 17, 30); Paul: 
edpovpe thy wokw ... midoa pe. Sia Ovpidos €v capydvy. dia rod Teixous ; 
Luke: mapernpodvro ras mvdas nyépas te Kal vuKtds, Oras avrov 
dvéd@ouy, AaBdvres S€ . . . vuxrds dia Tod Teiyous KaOjcay avroy yaddoayTes 
ev omvpidt. On this point cf. NKZ, xv. 34-41. 

24, (P. 125.) Clement of Rome possesses independent knowledge about 
the end of Paul’s life (1 Cor. v.; vol. ii. 68f.), but nevertheless refers the 
Corinthians in chap. xlvii. to 1 Cor., as if it were the first letter in a 
collection of Pauline letters (cf. GK, i. 812f.). Ignatius (Eph. xii. 2; 
Rom. iv. 3) and Polycarp (Phil. iii. 2, xi. 3) uniformly treat Paul as the 
author of the letters that pass under his name (vol. i. 535, n.3; GK, i. 811- 
822), although they were not unfamiliar with Acts (GA, i. 928). Marcion 
confines himself entirely to the letters, and leaves Acts out of account 
altogether. The schools of Basilides and Valentinus made large use of the 
Epistles, while it is impossible to prove certainly that they utilised Acts 
(GK, ii. 751-763, 773). In the Acts of Paul, including the Acts of Thecle 
and in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, we find the Epistles of Paul just as much 
noticed or imitated as Acts (GK, ii. 854f., 887-889, 903-909, i. 783, 78'7— 
789). 

25. (P. 127.) On p. 127 above, in xii. 25-xiii. 9, the a text is pre- 
supposed. Sand p have 6 émxadovpevos Maddos after Zaddos in xii. 25, and 
the latter alone, IladAos instead of Saddos in xiii. i, 2 also, but see p. 28, n. 6 
above. If, in view of xi. 25, 30, it is probable that Saidos was used in 
Antioch when Paul first came to the city, the scantily attested Maddos in 
xiii. 1, 2 is improbable, and for the recurrence of Sad\os in xiii. 7 there is no 
sufficient reason, and the addition in xii. 25 is superfluous. For the two 
names see vol. i. 69f. It is very possible that Paul’s own companions, 
Barnabas and Mark, up to this time had used Aramaic in conyersing with 
him, hence had called him Satdos. From the time, however, when they 
found it necessary to use Greek they called him Taddos. 

26. (P. 129.) The following are Hebraistic expressions in Acts i-xii. : 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 141 


dud xeupos (yecpdyv), ii. 23, v. 12, vil. 25, xi. 30; ef. €v or ody xeupi, vil. 35, also 
xiv. 3, xv. 23, xix. 11; ek yewpds, xii. 11; Luke i. 71, 74, also xxiv. 7; Av xelp 
Kupiov per airy, xi. 21, elsewhere only in Luke i. 66, but cf. also Acts 
iv. 28, 30, xili. 11; dua ordparos, i. 16, iii. 18, 21, iv. 25 (Luke i. 70), also 
xv. 7, cf. xxii. 14; Luke xi. 54, xix. 22, xxi. 71; dvoiéas 7d ordya, Viil. 35, 
x. 34 (viii. 32 quotation), cf. xvill. 14; nxovoOn eis ra dra, xi. 22, cf. Luke 
i.44; Matt. x. 27; Jas. v. 4; idov, 16 times in chaps. 1—xii., only 7 times in 
chaps. xili.-xxviil. see above, p. 135, n. 11. 

27. (P. 129.) E. NustLe has repeatedly attempted to explain the 
variations of Cod. D and the allied MSS. from the commonly accepted text 
in Acts, on the supposition that they are different translations of the same 
Pe oicow (or Aramaic) original, or due to variations in this original (CW, 
1895, separate print, 8. 6; Philol. sacra, 1896, 8S. 39ff.; ThStKr, 1896, 
8. 102f.). This is Sones aaes if, with D. Schultz (De ode Onndectrég. 1827, 
p. 16), we may regard the text of D as a later form of the text, dependent 
upon a Syriac translation of Acts; but this theory is irreconcilable with the 
view that both a and £ originated with the author, and that @ represents 
his original draft of the book. For, in view of the language conditions of 
the time, it is impossible to believe that one so thoroughly Greek in 
character as the Antiochian physician Luke, the author of the prologue, and 
the author or redactor of the entire Lucan work, could have read a Hebrew 
book. To every thousand Jews (Syrians, Copts) who at that time were able 
to read, write, and speak Greek, there could not at most have been more 
than one Greek who had obtained a corresponding knowledge of Hebrew 
or Aramaic. And the present writer confesses that he has sought this rara 
avis in vain. A few words and expressions were occasionally picked up 
from the natives (Forsch. i. 41), but it occurred to no educated Greek or 
Roman to learn their language in a systematic way (vol. i. 34ff.). Except 
in cases where a Greek pastor was assigned to a region where only Syriac 
was used (Forsch. i. 43), this was not done until Christians, such as Origen 
and Jerome, studied Hebrew in the interest of theology. Among these 
Aquila would be included, if he were actually a native Gentile and a 
Greek. a 

28. (P. 129.) ScuwanBeox, Uber die Quellen der Schriften des Le., vol. i. 
(the only vol.) ; der AG, 1847; ZELLuR, S. 489-524. JacossEn, Quellen der 
AG, 1885; Soror, Entstehwng der AG, 1890; Sprvra, Die AG, thre Quellen 
und deren geschichtl. Wert, 1891; GeRcKE, Hermes, 1894, 8. 373-392 ; Der 
dedrepos Adxos des Le. und die AG: Frine, Hine vorkanonische Urerlieferung 
des Le. 1891; Jineast, Quellen der AG, 1895. Cf. the review by Zéckler, 
Greifswalder Stud. 1895, S. 107-145 : “Die AG als Gegenstand héherer und 
niederer Kritik.” It would be useless to undertake to review the separate 
hypotheses of the scholars mentioned. It will be sufficient to illustrate the 
conception of the redactor of the entire work, if attention be called to 
Spitta’s idea of his work in writing down Acts ii. 1 (S. 23, 51). In the A 
source the outpouring of the Spirit was connected with the choice of an 
apostle by the words cal év r@ ovpmAnpotoda, to which the indulgent 
reader was left to supply airovs or roy dpiOpudy, sc. rov droordhkov. At the 
moment when the number of the apostles was complete they were all filled 
with the Holy Spirit. In the B source the story began with the words, 


142 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


“But when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together.” 
The redactor, however, misunderstood A, and out of A and B constructed 
the alleged bungling construction of ii. 1. The only conceivable motive for 
the retention of ovpmAnpodcba, which was misunderstood,—also entirely 
unintelligible in A,—would be the childish fondness of the redactor for this 
word, which is found elsewhere only in Luke viii. 23, ix. 51, and used here 
inaccurately, as in Luke ix. 51. For also in Luke ix. 51 it is not the time 
until the taking wp, which is said to be fulfilled,—the natural expression,— 
but the time at which the taking up occurs. It is the same common shift- 
ing of the idea that we have in the mwemAnpwra 6 xaipds of Mark i. 15; 
John vii. 8, and other similar combinations (cf. Luke ix. 31; John iii. 29). 
In this way it comes about that a point of time or an event which really 
marks the conclusion of a period at the end of which these are expected, is 
itself said to be fulfilled. 


§ 62. THE AUTHOR OF THE WORK ATTRIBUTED TO 
LUKE AND THE TIME OF ITS COMPOSITION. 


Assuming that the “we” passages, Acts xvi. 10-18, 
xx. 5-xxi. 18, xxvii. 1—-xxviil. 16, were written by a 
travelling companion of Paul’s, either in the form in 
which we now possess them, or at least in substance 
(above, p. 115f.), it is entirely arbitrary to attribute their 
composition to some person other than Luke, to whom they 
are assigned by the tradition, whether it be to TrmotHy 
or Siuas (Silvanus) or Trrvs (n. 1). 

The first two names are excluded because both are 
mentioned in the third person and by name in xv. 22— 
xvill. 5, directly before and directly after the first long 
“we” passage. Timothy is mentioned again in xix. 22 
and once more in xx. 4, directly before the “we” re- 
appears. The sudden transition from the impersonal 
designation of one of these persons, “ Silas or Timothy,” 
to “1,” which is implied by the use of “ we,” and especi- 
ally the contrast between one group of individuals, which 
includes Timothy, and a second group, which includes 
Paul and the narrator speaking in the first. person (Acts 
xx. 4-6), would not only make the narrative incredibly 
awkward, or introduce into it a needless element of 
mystery, but would be positively meaningless (above, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 143 


p. 86 f, nn. 11-13). Moreover, if the “we” in xi. 27 
is original (above, p. 4, n. 3; 28, n. 6), Silas and 
Timothy are excluded. Silas was not at this time a 
resident of Antioch, but of Jerusalem (xv. 22), and 
Timothy had not yet become a Christian ; for it was not 
until very much later that the gospel reached the province 
where he lived (xiv. 6, xvi. 1). 

Furthermore, Silas is not mentioned as one of Paul’s 
companions in any of the letters written from Rome. 
But, according to Acts xxvil. 1—xxviii. 16, the narrator 
accompanied Paul to Rome, and, unless we assume that 
a strange accident took place, he was, like Aristarchus 
(xxvii. 2), whom we meet again in Col. iv. 10, Philem. 
24, one of the persons mentioned in Col. 1. 1, iv. 7-14; 
Philem. 1, 23 f. 

Since Paul took Titus with him from Antioch to the 
apostolic council after the first missionary journey (Gal. 
ii. 1), possibly he may be concealed behind the “we” of | 
Acts xi. 27. Since, moreover, he is not mentioned at all 
in the prevailing text of Acts (see, however, above, p. 28, 
n. 6), some of the difficulties disappear in which we are 
involved when we assume that the “we” passages were 
written by Silas or Timothy. But Titus could not have 
been the author of the “we” passages, because there is 
nothing to indicate that he accompanied Paul to Rome, 
or was with him there during the first imprisonment. 

It has already been remarked (above, p. 117) that, if, 
without reference to the ancient tradition, we were under 
necessity of conjecturing which one of Paul’s friends who 
were with him in Rome wrote the account of the journey 
in Acts xxvii., the choice would most naturally fall upon 
the physician Luke. But, in addition, there is an ancient 
and unanimous tradition which represents Luke as the 
author of the entire work, 2.e. identifies him with the 
person speaking in Luke i. 1-4; Acts i. 1, also, how- 
ever, with the person associated with Paul and_ his 


144. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


” 


other travelling companions in the “we” passages of 
Acts. It is impossible to explain this tradition unless 
there are at least good reasons for assuming that Luke is 
the author of the “we” passages. For it is inconceivable 
that Luke should be the author of the entire work and 
at the same time have appropriated for his own use in 
different parts of his work accounts of journeys written by 
Titus, or some third party, without so much as changing 
the inappropriate “‘we” into the third person. A man 
with the literary training of the writer of these two books 
could not have made such a blunder unintentionally (n. 2). 
Nor could a man like Luke, who was so closely associated 
with Paul and the events narrated, have endeavoured to 
deceive his readers by borrowing the journal of another 
disciple of Paul’s and by retaining the “‘ we” used in these 
accounts. He did not need to borrow a mask; his own 
authority was sufficient. In this case it would be neces- 
sary to assume at once that some later writer, out of 
touch with the events which he was about to narrate, 
sought by the retention of the “we,” which he found in 
one of his exemplars, to create the impression that he was 
an eye-witness. And, as a matter of fact, this is the 
assumption made by those who grant that Luke was the 
author of the “we” passages, but not of the entire work 
(n. 3). But this hypothesis is in itself incredible and 
incapable of explaining the tradition. One unacquainted 
with the original work would not notice the fact that in 
Acts several of its passages had been borrowed, and hence 
could not in this way be led to believe that Luke, who 
may have been known as the author of the original work, 
was the author of the much later compilation. But the 
same would be true also of the reader, who was acquainted 
with the original work, and who knew that Luke was its 
author ; since such a person would detect the plagiarism 
and could not possibly confuse a large historical work, 
consisting of two books, with a work by Luke of an 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 145 


entirely different character, because of a few chapters 
incorporated from the latter. Nor is any such deception 
to be attributed to the author of the Lucan work; for if 
this were his purpose, then the means which he chose in 
order to pass himself off for Luke, the friend of Paul, 
were ridiculously inadequate. In the preface he would be 
merely suggesting that, in the course of the history which 
he is about to set forth, he became an eye-witness of the 
events which he records, and a helper in the proclamation 
of the gospel. And, indeed, in such a delicate way that 
modern readers can deny that the passage really contains 
the author’s testimony to himself which we have found it 
to contain (above, pp. 46f., 54f). When he comes to 
deal with the events where he wanted the reader to think 
that he was an eye-witness, when he was not, he would be 
concealing his identity by the use of a “we,” which clearly 
includes several persons, without indicating the specific 
person for whom he wishes himself to be taken, and with- 
out relating how he became a companion of Paul. Why 
did he not use one of the unmistakable methods employed 
by the classical historians, or by Polybius, or Josephus, 
or Porphyry, when they wanted to make clear to their 
readers things about themselves and their personal rela- 
tions to the facts which they recorded (above, p. 86, 
n. 11)? Anyone having such a purpose, no matter how 
stupid he was, could not have failed to make use of 
means which were suited to accomplish it. In particular, 
judging by all analogous cases, the deceptive intention 
of the author to pass himself off for Luke must have 
betrayed itself in a bold use of unmistakable designations 
of himself (n. 4). The modest way in which the author 
refers to himself in the hints of the prologue, and the 
corresponding manner in which he introduces himself in 
Acts xi. 27, and from xvi. 10 onwards, is evidence of his 
truthfulness. 

If there is no reasonable ground for denying the Lucan 

VOL, Ill. Io 


146 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


authorship of the “‘ we” passages, he is to be regarded also 
as the author of the entire work. The burden of proof 
rests with those who deny this claim, not with those who 
find no reason to question the agreement of the tradition 
with the witness of the book to its author. But this 
latter conclusion is otherwise supported both by the con- 
tents and by the style of the entire work. Against the 
proof based upon semilarity of language in the “we” 
passages and other parts of the work (above, pp. 79, 92, 
n. 28), it is argued, either that the redactor of the entire 
work introduced long interpolations in xx. 5—xxvill. 31, 
or that he revised thoroughly the style of the sources 
which he used. Thus it will be seen that this evidence 
is met, not by counter arguments, but by hypotheses. 
The first of these assumptions can never be positively 
proved, and against the second stands the fact that Luke 
admitted into his work the greatest variety of style 
(above, p. 104). His revision of the style of such narra- 
tives as he took from Mark was due to the clumsiness of 
their language, particularly to their strongly Hebraised 
character. That, however, the account of the journey 
written by one of Paul’s companions would have required 
as much revision as Mark’s Gospel is very unlikely. 

W. K. Hopart (n. 5) has proved to the satisfaction of 
anyone open to conviction, that the author of the Lucan 
work was familiar with the technical language of Greek 
medicine, and hence was a G'reek physician. It is not to 
be judged as a coincidence that Luke alone preserves the 
proverb used by Jesus, “ Physician, heal thyself” (iv. 23), 
that he only of the four evangelists who tell the story of 
the wounding of Malchus’ ear, also related that it was 
healed by Jesus (xxii. 51), and that in the description of 
Jesus’ healing work he sometimes writes more fully than 
does Mark, and with greater vividness, notwithstanding 
the fact that in the sections which he borrows from Mark 
he frequently omits unnecessary details. The friends of 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 147 


the woman stricken with fever consult the physician. 
He approaches the bedside, bends over the patient, and 
rebukes the fever as He does elsewhere the evil spirits 
(iv. 38f.=Mark i. 30f.). It did not seem natural to a 
physician after the restoration of the maiden to life, that 
Jesus should first have forbidden those present to make 
the fact known, and then have given the medical instruc- 
tions that the child be supplied with something to eat 
(Mark v. 43). So he reverses the order (Luke viii. 55 f.). 
Just as in the accounts of cases of healing peculiar to his 
Gospel, Luke often indicates how long the person healed 
had been afflicted (xi. 11; Acts 111. 2, iv. 22, ix. 38, xiv. 8, 
only Luke viii. 43 has parallels in Matthew and Mark), so in 
viii. 27-29 he inserts such a notice in an older account 
(Mark v. 2), with the added remark that the person 
possessed of the evil spirit would not endure clothing 
upon his body, a fact which has been observed by physi- 
cians (Hobart, p. 14). It is Luke alone who accurately 
indicates that it was the right hand which was healed 
(vi. 6), and who notes that healing was accomplished by 
the laying on of hands (iv. 40), where mention of this act 
is not made in Matthew (vi. 16) or in Mark (i. 34). 
Luke alone describes vividly the physical side of Jesus’ 
struggle in prayer (xxii. 43f.). Out of consideration for 
himself and his fellow practitioners, Luke does not omit 
the humiliating confession that the believing touch of 
Jesus’ garment brought healing where long and expensive 
treatment by physicians had accomplished nothing (Luke 
viii. 48, n. 6). It is even more significant that Luke 
everywhere avoids the inaccurate popular designations 
of diseases and kindred things, and uses the technical 
language of medical writers. It will also be observed 
that Luke often uses, in describing other objects and 
relations, words with which a physician must have been 
familiar in his practice, and which, therefore, occur with 
very great frequency in the writings of the Greek physi- 


148 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


cians (n. 5). The crowning proof of the composition of 
the entire work by the physician Luke is the fact, first, 
that these peculiarities are found in those sections of Luke 
which have parallels in Matthew and Mark ; secondly, that 
they recur in other parts of the entire work, or, at least, 
have their analogies; and thirdly, that they consist of 
words and expressions which are to be found in the N.T. 
in no other writings save those of Luke, or occur here 
with greater frequency than in all other N.T. writings. 
These facts cannot, therefore, be explained on the ground 
that one of the sources used by the author of the entire 
work was written by a trained physician, but from the 
fact that the author of the entire work—the person who 
worked over the older narratives of Mark and also of 
other writers who are unknown to us—must himself have 
- been an educated physician. 

It would require a complete historical commentary to 
answer fully all the arguments that have been advanced 
against the composition of the Lucan work by a friend of 
Paul’s. While the theologians have persistently charged 
Luke with ignorance of the historical conditions and 
personages with which he deals, historians and investi- 
gators of antiquity of the first rank, who have gone into 
the matter with great care, declare Acts especially to be 
throughout an important and, in the main, trustworthy 
historical document (n. 7). Whereas all the apocryphal 
literature of the second century (the Gospels of James, 
Thomas, and Peter; Acta Pilati, Paule [including the 
Acts of Thecle], Petri, Joannis, etc.) clearly betray 
in the Christian and even more in the non-Christian, 
characters which they introduce, and in their portrayal of 
political conditions in Palestine and in the empire, the 
influence of the N.T., and consist almost entirely of 
fantastic stories, Luke’s account is everywhere confined 
to facts which we are able to verify from other sources. 
On the subject of Jewish history from 4 8.0. to 60 A.D., 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 149 


Luke’s information is independent of Josephus, and for the 
earlier decades of the period, is sometimes more reliable 
(above, pp. 95 ff, 131), for example, with reference to 
the official position of Quirinius and the time when he 
held office (above, p. 96). It is possible that in what 
Luke says about Theudas (Acts v. 36) there is a great 
chronological error (above, p. 132, n. 6), but this cannot 
be proved from the conflicting account by Josephus. In 
any case Luke did not compose the speech in which this 
error is supposed to be found, but took it from some older 
source which he may not have been able to correct in this 
minor point. ‘The case is different when he is dealing 
with subjects that come properly within the scope of 
Christian history, for example, in what he says concerning 
the Fabian policy of the Pharisees toward Christianity, 
prior to the death of Stephen, as distinguished from the 
attitude of the Sadducees, which alone enables us to 
explain the entrance of Pharisaism into the Christian 
Church (xv. 5), and without which it would be impossible 
historically to explain Paul's development. Here his 
testimony is historically unimpeachable. Consequently 
progress in our knowledge concerning Jewish parties is to 
be made, not along the lines suggested by Geiger and 
Wellhausen,—by more thorough study of the Talmud or 
of Josephus,—but by a better appreciation of the words 
} otca aipeous TOV Zaddoveatwy in Acts v. 17. 

Luke is even better acquainted with conditions and 
persons in the provinces and cities which were the scene 
of Paul’s labours than he is with Jewish conditions. The 
proconsuls Sergius Paulus and Gallio (xiii. 7, xviii. 12) 
are historical personages, and, so far as we are able to 
determine the date of their respective terms of office in 
Cyprus and Achaia, there is no contradiction to the prob- 
able chronology of Paul’s life and work (Part XI.). In the 
investigation of Paul’s letters we have frequently found 
the notices of Acts confirmed by inscriptions and writings, 


150 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


for example, with regard to the politarchs in Thessalonica 
and the population of Philippi (vol. i. 211f, 532f.). Here 
there is no difference between the “we” passages and 
other parts of Acts. No success has attended the effort 
to explain the uprising of the silversmiths (Acts xix. 23 ff.) 
by assuming that it is simply a misinterpretation of an 
official title (n. 8). 

It is impossible to determine in separate instances to 
what extent Luke, in recording the longer discourses of 
Peter and of Paul, made use of the liberty often taken 
by the ancient historian freely to reconstruct their form, 
in the light of his knowledge of persons and conditions 
involved. Nor do we know how far these could have been 
taken from the reports of persons who heard them (e.g. 
Xvii. 34, xxv. 23, cf. xxiv. 23). But it is only necessary 
to compare the addresses recorded by Luke with the 
miserable harangues which Josephus puts into the mouths 
of his heroes, in order to see that Luke was not only much 
better educated than Josephus, but that he regarded much 
more seriously the obligation of historical accuracy. 

The strongest proof of Luke’s thorough acquaintance 
with what he undertook to set forth is the fact that, 
without consultation of Paul’s letters as sources (above, 
p. 118 ff.), Luke’s accounts, in their main outlines and in 
a great many of their details, are in thorough agreement 
with them. In addition to what has been already said 
incidentally in numerous passages of the earlier volumes, 
the following points may be noted here. In Acts the 
progress of Paul’s ministry is marked not only by visions 
and revelations (ix. 8-9, xiil. 2, xvi. 6-10, xviii. 9, xx. 23, 
xxi. 11, xxii. 17-21, xxiii. 11, xxvii. 23), by notable cases 
of healing (xiv. 8-10, xix. 11-17), and similar miracles 
(xiii, 11, xvi. 18, xx. 9, xxviii. 83-6), but also by natural 
phenomena of the most extraordinary character (xvi. 
26-30). But all this is in accord with Paul’s own testi- 
mony. In addition to the revelation of Christ to which 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 151 


he owed his faith and calling (Gal. i. 12-16; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 
xv. 8), the visions of a later time which he could never 
forget (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; Gal. ii. 1), and his participation 
in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xiv. 18), he 
refers to signs, wonders (répata), and mighty works which 
prove his right to exercise his apostolic calling (2 Cor. 
xii. 11-12; Rom. xv. 19), and which, if need be, will 
again establish his right to punish evil-doers (1 Cor. v. 
3-5; 2 Cor. x. 4, xii. 2-10). It shows a lack of careful 
thinking when the letters of Paul mentioned above are 
accepted as genuine, but the authorship of the correspond- 
ing narratives in Acts, or the entire book of which these 
narratives are a part, by a friend of Paul’s and by an 
eye-witness of some of these things, is denied, because of 
the miraculous element which it contains. Literary and 
historical criticism have nothing to do with the question 
as to the nature of these events and why it was that they 
influenced so strongly the consciousness of Paul and those 
about him. 

By the “very chiefest apostles,” in contrast to whom 
Paul speaks of the signs and wonders which were done 
through him (2 Cor. xii. 11 f.), are meant, not the original 
apostles, but the followers of Peter, who were not willing 
to admit that Paul’s apostleship was on a par with that of 
Peter (vol. i. 288f.). The very fact that in making this 
contrast Paul calls these miraculous signs T@ onpeta tod 
amootoxov, shows that in this respect also he claimed to be 
the equal of the older apostles, especially of Peter (cf. also 
1 Cor. ix. 1-5, xv. 5-11). But this comparison is not 
something new, suggested now for the first time by his 
opposition to the Petrine party. But, according to Gal. ii. 
7-9, at the apostolic coungil the same comparison was 
made between Peter and Paul, and the fact that God 
owned and blessed Paul’s preaching in exactly the same 
way that He did Peter’s made a profound impression. 
Even then this was the effect produced by the stories 


! 
152 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


told in Jerusalem by the missionaries to the Gentiles 
(Gal. ii. 2; Acts xv. 3,12, oneta kai répata, cf. xxi. 19). 
There is no occasion, therefore, because of a certain 
parallelism in Acts between the miraculous deeds and 
experiences of Peter and of Paul to question the historicity 
of these accounts (n. 9). If Luke, in choosing from the 
abundance of material at his disposal, brought out this 
relation, he was led to do so only under the influence of 
a Pauline idea, or, as is more probable, by an uplifting 
experience of apostolic Christianity. 

In summarising the main ideas that pervade the entire 
work (above, p. 69 ff.), it has been repeatedly observed 
that the author was influenced by ideas not found in the 
N.T. except in Paul’s writings. The claim that Luke 
represents the attitude of Paul toward legalistic Jewish 
Christianity as one of yielding to it, thereby sacrificing 
historical accuracy and contradicting the fundamental 
principles of Paul, cannot be substantiated. The circum- 
cision of Timothy, which, if it had not actually happened, 
would be, as an invention, in the most glaring contradiction 
to history, is testified to by Paul himself (vol. i. 538, 182). 
The Paul of Acts, who, on the one hand, denies that the 
observing of the law has any saving efficacy, either for 
Jews or Gentiles, attributing this power to faith in Christ 
(xili. 38f, cf. Luke xv. 1-32, xviii. 9-14, vii. 36-50), 
and who will not suffer the Mosaic law to be forced upon 
the Gentile Christians, but, on the other hand, is eager to 
keep Jewish feasts in Jerusalem (xx. 16, cf. xx. 6, accord- 
ing to 8, also xviii. 21), has no objections to the assump- 
tion of vows by Jewish Christians (xviii. 18), and on one 
occasion himself takes part in such an act (xxi. 26),—this 
Paul is none other than the Paul of the letters. In fact, 
Paul never required Jewish Christians to. give up the 
observance of the law. Even in Churches, where there 
were both Jews and Gentiles, the former might retain 
their Judaism as a religious non-essential, in so far as it 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS _ 153 


did not conflict with higher ends (1 Cor. vii. 18 f.; Gal.v. 6, 
vi. 15; Rom. xiv. 5f.,, vol. 1. 422f.). Consequently he was 
able to deny the false report that he compelled the Jews of 
the diaspora to renounce the law (Acts xxi. 21). He repre- 
sents his own emancipation from the law as being for the 
sake of his calling, a renunciation of rights which were 
legitimate, and of his natural Jewish manner of life (1 Cor. 
ix. 21, cf. Gal. iv. 12). On the other hand, he asserts with 
equal clearness that, notwithstanding his inward freedom 
from the law, he observes it for the sake of the Jews, with 
whom his calling brought him into contact (1 Cor. ix. 20). 

For this reason the so-called apostolic decree cannot 
be regarded as contradictory to Paul’s account in Gal. i1. 
1-10, nor treated as an invention, made on the basis of 
customs in vogue in the Church at a later time; because, 
by the end of the first century, some of its stipulations 
had become obsolete and after that time were nowhere 
strictly observed (n. 10). The literal fulfilment of all its 
requirements—in some quarters down to the Middle Ages, 
and even to the present time—was due entirely to the 
tendency to observe the letter of this apostolic command. 
The fact that, in his short account in Gal. i. 1-10, Paul 
does not mention abstinence from the four things men- 
tioned, which were not the only, nor by any means the 
principal, contents of the decree, is no argument against 
its historical character. For, in the jirst place, this 
requirement had nothing to do with Paul’s relation to the 
original apostles and the mother Church, which is the only 
question under discussion in Galatians. The missionaries 
to the Gentiles were not commissioned to enforce these 
regulations upon the Gentile Christians, but the mother 
Church dealt with them directly through her own am- 
bassadors. In the second place, the resolution did not 
affect intercourse between the Gentile and Jewish Chris- 
tians, concerning which not a single word is said in Acts 
xv. The Jewish Christians who desired to live according 


154 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to the law, could not associate in social life and worship 
even with Gentile Christians who observed the four re- 
strictions, without constantly being made ceremonially 
unclean. In the third place, the decree was no concession 
to the Judaisers; since the recommendation to abstain 
from the four things specified was not intended as a 
substitution of a partial observance of the law for a full 
compliance with its demands. On the contrary, it was 
meant to free the Gentile Christians entirely from the 
legal yoke, which already had its advocates among the 
rabbis in every city (xv. 19-21, cf. ver. 10). In the 
fourth place, it represented no compromise between the 
missionaries to the Gentiles and the Judaisers. On the 
contrary, while the work of the former was unconditionally 
recognised (ver. 25ff.), that of the latter was unconditionally 
condemned (vv. 10, 19, 24). In the fifth place, it was 
not a new command, observance of which was made a 
condition for the recognition of men as Christians. The 
Christian character of the Gentile Christians is acknow- 
ledged from the outset as unconditionally as that of their 
missionaries (vv. 8-11, 14, 19, 23), and it was not the 
recognition of their Christian character, but their well- 
being as Gentile Christians, which is represented as 
dependent upon their abstinence from the four things 
specified (ver. 29). Finally, in the sexth place, nothing 
whatever is said about commands and requirements, but 
mention is made only of a communication by letter (ver. 
20, émoreidas, cf. xxi. 25), which was received joyfully by 
those to whom it was sent, being regarded by them as an 
encouraging word, as were also the oral communications of 
those by whom the message was brought (ver. 31 f. some- 
what in the sense of 1 Pet. v. 12). For this reason it is 
not to be supposed that the Gentile Christians in Antioch 
had not heretofore abstained from the things mentioned, 
that Paul had not demanded it of them, and that the 
requirement was now laid upon them for the first time as 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 155 


a new burden. If only they continue to abstain from 
these things (ver. 29, Svatnpodrtes), it will go well with 
them. The fact that the Council in Jerusalem had reached 
this decision made it natural for the missionaries to at 
once enjoin abstinence in these four particulars upon the 
more recently organised Churches of Lycaonia, but that 
does not in any way affect the fact that the principal 
point in the decree was the recognition of the right of the 
Gentiles to live as they had lived heretofore, unfettered 
by the law, and that the accompanying recommendation 
of abstinence in the four particulars mentioned set the 
Council’s approval upon a Christian custom in process of 
formation in the Churches of Antioch and Cilicia. This 
custom spread in the missionary Churches among the 
Gentiles. The attitude of the majority in the Corinthian 
Church regarding the question about meats offered to idols, 
as well as the laxity of their opinions concerning un- 
chastity, were opposed to the general Christian practice - 
(1 Cor. x. 32, vol. 1. 297, n. 7). Gradually the require- 
ments, which from the beginning were of minor import- 
ance, namely, abstinence from blood and things strangled, 
were no longer observed, with the result that the text of 
the decree as preserved by Luke was misinterpreted and 
modified in many ways (above, p. 33 f.). Luke would not 
have incorporated this document in his work—especially 
in a book intended for Theophilus, who was still outside the 
Church—if already in his time the progress of Christian 
morals had made the stipulations of the decree in some 
respects antiquated, as they were at the time when Revela- 
tion and the Didache were written (n. 10). 

The Lucan work must, therefore, have been written 
somewhat earlier than the close of the first century. This 
we have already seen to be the case, because of the author’s 
entire independence of the Pauline letters (above, p. 118 ff.), 
and because he had no knowledge of any Gospel written 
by an apostle, in particular of our Greek Matthew (above, 


‘156 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


pp. 50, 108 f.). Furthermore, if the reasons for the com- 
position of the whole work by Luke have been shown to 
be as strong as the objections to it are weak, and if Luke 
was a member of the Church in Antioch as early as the 
year 40 (above, p. 2), it is not likely that it was written 
later than the year 85; especially if that Lucius of 
Cyrene, who in the years 40-50 is mentioned by name as 
a teacher of the same Church—therefore at that time no 
longer a young man—was still alive when Acts was 
written (above, p. 28, n. 6). On the other hand, it could 
not well have been written before the year 70. The use of 
Mark, which at the earliest was not written before the 
year 67, brings us almost down to the year 70. Luke's 
intention to conclude his work in a third book (above, 
p. 56 ff.) presupposes that a period of Christian history of 
considerable length had intervened since the time the 
narrative was broken off in Acts xxviii. 30ff., 2.e. since 
the spring of 63. Finally, a Christian of the age in which 
Luke lived could not well have the idea that the develop- 
ment of the history of Christianity had reached its con- 
summation before the judgment upon Jerusalem and the 
Temple, prophesied by Jesus, had taken place (above, 
p. 60). This would be especially true in the case of 
Luke, who records more fully than any other evangelist 
very definite prophecies of Jesus regarding these events. 
Besides Luke xiii. 84-35, xxi. 6 (Matt. xxiii. 36—xxiv. 2; 
Mark xiii. 2, cf. Matt. xxii. 7, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark 
xiv. 58; John ii. 19; Acts vi. 14), Luke alone records the 
impressive scenes in xix. 41-44, xxi. 27-31, the parable 
of xix. 11-27, the meaning of which is unmistakable, the 
pointed application after xx. 18 (Matt. xxi. 44 is spurious), 
and, finally, the discourse in xxi. 20-24. While the latter 
has many words in common with Matt. xxiv.-15-20, Mark 
xiii. 14-18, and has the same relative place in the long 
prophetic discourse as do the corresponding sections of 
Matthew and Mark, its contents are essentially different. 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 157 


According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus did not on this 
occasion speak of the awful destruction of the temple, 
much less of the siege, capture, and destruction of Jeru- 
salem. But their words refer rather to the setting up in 
the temple of an idolatrous abomination prophesied by 
Daniel, by which true worship is to be displaced, the 
temple desecrated, and consequently desolated, and to the 
last and greatest persecution of the Church which will be 
connected with this event, and which will be ended by the 
return of Christ (vol. ii. 570f, vol. 1 226 ff, 235 ff.). 
Luke says nothing of these things, and gives instead a 
prophecy of the siege of Jerusalem by hostile armies 
xxi. 20, cf. xix. 43), of the flight of the saints from 
Jerusalem and Judea (xxi. 21 ff.), of the slaughter of part 
of the population of Jerusalem, and the capture and lead- 
ing away into captivity of others, and of the permanent 
conquest of Jerusalem by the Gentiles (xxi. 24, cf. xix. 44, 
xxill. 28f.). Only by gross misinterpretation of the . 
prophecy to be found in Matthew and Mark is it possible 
to affirm that Luke merely states with greater clearness 
what is mysteriously hinted at in Matthew and Mark. 
The real question is why Luke replaced the prophecy of 
the desecrating abomination in the holy place, with which 
he was familiar from Mark and from the prophetic teach- 
ing of the Pauline Churches, by a prophecy of totally 
different contents, and why generally in his Gospel he 
inserts with so much greater clearness and so much greater 
variety than do Matthew and Mark the prophecies of the 
fall of Jerusalem. In answer to the first question, we have 
the fact that his book was intended for a man still outside 
the Church, who would not be able to understand such a 
prophecy. Luke here follows the principles of his own 
teacher (1 Cor. ii. 6-16). The answer to the second 
question is not dependent upon the question whether it 
was probable or even possible for Jesus to depict the 
events which took place in 70 with greater clearness 


158 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


than in the passages quoted from the other Gospels, for 
example, as clearly as in Luke xix. 43f, xxi. 20-24. 
According to the unanimous tradition, Jesus predicted that 
the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple would occur 
before His own generation passed away. Consequently, it 
is presumptuous to deny that He was able to describe this 
event with the clearness of Luke xix. 43f. as of xxi. 
20-24. The only question is whether in the prophetic 
discourse recorded by all three of the Synoptists in the 
same connection Jesus actually spoke what is found in 
Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xiii. 14-28, or what is found in 
Luke xxi. 20-24. If the objections to the historicity of 
what Matthew and Mark say on this point are without 
weight (vol. i. 570f, 588, n. 2), then it follows that the 
departure from strict historical accuracy is on the side of 
Luke, who wrote later than the others. When it is re- 
called that in the same passage Mark interpreted the 
prophecy preserved in its original form by Matthew, with 
distinct reference to the later understanding of the Church, 
and otherwise recast it (vol. ii. 500), there can be little 
doubt that Luke was led by the destruction of Jerusalem, 
which had now actually taken place, to report the pro- 
phecies of Jesus relative to this event with greater detail 
and fulness than the evangelists writing before 70 had 
done, and in xxi. 20-24 to substitute such a prophecy for 
the one which is found in Mark. The narratives in xix. 
11-27, 41-44, xxiil. 27-31 do not read as if they were 
written after 70, or as if they were the inventions of 
Luke. The fact that Luke brought these narratives out of 
the treasury of tradition is itself only an indication of the 
time when he wrote. On the other hand, the recasting of 
the original prophecy in xxi. 20-24 was the effect of the 
events of the year 70. 

Whether this modification was due to Luke alone, or 
whether it was simply a reflexion of the impressions made 


upon Palestinian Christians who witnessed these events, 


THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS AND ACTS 159 


the present writer does not venture to decide. The latter 
supposition is the more probable. It was impossible for 
these persons to watch the approach of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and see it actually accomplished, without con- 
sidering the events of their time in the light of Jesus’ 
prophecy, and without following their development with 
the deepest interest. It is almost impossible not to 
suppose that the prophecies among these Christians which 
are said to have led to the flight from Jerusalem to Pella 
(vol. ii. 588, n. 3), were based upon the prophecy of Jesus 
preserved in Matt. xxiv. 15-28; Mark xii. 14-23, and 
consisted of an adaptation of these words to the particular 
circumstances of the time. Luke, by appropriating this 
modified form of Jesus’ prophecies, and by adopting into 
his narrative a large number of prophecies concerning the 
fall of Jerusalem,—omitting, however, the prophecy of 
the Bddruypwa épnudoews, which was based upon Daniel and 
unintelligible to Theophilus,—was able to make it serve 
his apologetic purpose. If he had written his third book, 
he would certainly have shown definitely how the pro- 
phecies of Jesus concerning Jerusalem were fulfilled forty 
years after they were made. In view of all these con- 
siderations, it may be assumed with practical certainty 
that Luke wrote his work about the year 75 (n. 11). 

According to the present writer’s view, it is not pos- 
sible to make any affirmation relative to the place where 
the work was written. A tradition represents Luke as 
writing his work in Greece and dying between his seventy- 
fourth and eighty-fourth year in Boeotia, or Bithynia ; this 
is based upon legends which we must have before us in a 
complete form before it is possible to determine whether 
they contain a germ of historical fact (n. 12). 


1. (P. 142.) Mayzrnorr, Hinl. in die petrin. Schriften, 1835, 8. 13-30, 
endeavoured to show that Timothy was the author of the travel-document, 
and also of the whole Lucan work. According to the statement of Ulrich, 
ThStKr, 1837, 8. 369 ff., SoHLEIERMACHER, in his lectures, regarded Timothy 
as the author of the travel-document, but not of Acts; and in this Bleek 


160 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


and others followed him. The view is not found, however, in the printed 
lectures (cf. his Werke, Zur Theologie, iii. 344-379). ScHWANBECK (Ueber 
die Quellen der Schriften des Lucas, 1847) pictured that Silas was the author 
of the itinerary, or rather of the memoirs, incorporated with little change 
in Acts xv. 1-xxvili. 31. He printed these memoirs (S. 265-309), and added 
(S. 309-320) fragments of a life of Barnabas from Acts iv. 36-xv. 4. 
KRENKEL, Paulus der Apostel der Heiden, 1869, S. 214, following others, 
suggested Titus. 

2. (P. 144.) Examples of the mechanical retention by a later writer of 
an “I” or “we,” which was appropriate only in the source of which he 
made use, are given by Schwanbeck, 8. 189 ff. (after Stengel, Geschichte 
Deutschlands unter den friink. Kaisern, ii. 10 ff.), from the annalistic literature 
of the Middle Ages. Attention was called also to the interchange of the first 
and third persons in Ezra-Nehemiah, to similar phenomena in the book of 
Tobit (Konig, Alttest. inl. 276 ff. ; Schiirer, iii. 176 [Eng. trans. 1. ili. 40), 
and to a curious “we” at the close of the Diamartyria Jacobi (Lagarde, 
Clementina, p. 6. 1). Jerome occasionally falls into a peculiar style midway 
between thoughtlessness and deception ; cf. Forsch. ii. 88 f., 278 f. 

3. (P. 144.) According to Baur, Paulus, i. 17, the author of Acts was 
very willing to be taken for Luke, whose travel-document he adopted, and 
with whom he thus identified himself. According to Zeller, 456, 460, 516, 
with less diffidence he did his utmost to deliberately confuse the reader as 
to his identity by giving the book a title which included the name of Luke, 
and thus made the “we” later on intelligible (see above, p. 80, n. 1). 
Overbeck, xlv., also assumes intentional pseudonymity. 

4, (P. 145.) Protev. Jacobi, chap. xxv. 1, ey d€ "IdxkwBos 6 ypdas tairny 
ryv ioropiav ; Ev. Thome, chap. i., according to both Greek recensions ; 
Ev. Petri, xiv. 59f., jpeis S€ of d@dexa pabnral .. . eyo S€ Sivwv Ieérpos cai 
*Avdpéas 6 adcApds pov. Clem. Hom. i. 1. Cf. GK, ii. 725 (Gospel of the 
Twelve, fragment 2), 772, 775, 856-860 (with regard to Leucius as author of 
apostolic histories). Cf. also the examples from secular literature above, 
p. 86, n. 11. 

5. (Pp. 146, 148.) Hobart (The Medical Language of Luke, Dublin, 1882), 
with remarkable industry, has collected parallels to Luke out of the writings of 
Hippocrates (circa 430 B.0.), Dioscorides (contemporary with Luke), Aretzeus, 
and Galen (both about 160 a.D.), arranging them topically, and furnishing 
a good index, pp. 299-305. A few only can be selected here, partly to 
amplify and partly to justify what has been said above, p. 146 f.: I. Designa- 
tions of bodily processes, symptoms of disease, cures, and the like, in harmony 
with the usage of medical writers. (1) In those portions of Luke which have 
more or less exact parallels in Matt. and Mark. Let it be observed, to begin 
with, that Luke avoids the following terms for sickness which are not 
customary with the medical men, padaxia (Matt. LXX., Test. XT. Patr.), 
Bacavos, BacaviferOa (Matt. iv. 24, viii. 6, ridiculed by Lucian, Solec. 6), 
and that of Luke terms for conception, etc. ¢yew ev yaorpi (xxi. 23), 
ovAAapBavew with (i. 31, cf. ii. 21) and without ev yaorpi (i. 24, 36). %yx«vos, 
oreipa, arexvos, Which, with orapyavoiy also, are all current with the physi- 
cians, only the first is found in Matt. (i. 18, xxiv. 19) and Mark (xiii. 17). 
Terms of a specifically medical character which are not found in the parallel 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 161 


passages are, for example, piyav . . . pndév Bday, iv. 35 (cf. Mark xvi. 18) ; 
guvexonevn mupeTe peyadro, iv. 38 (cf. wuperois Kal duvevrepig cuvexdspevoy, 
Acts xxviii. 8). This last-named verb, occurring 6 times in Luke (of a 
constrained state of mind in vill. 37 and xii. 50), 3 times in Acts, and 
once in iv. 24 with Bacavors (see above), belongs, like the distinction between 
“sreat” and little fever and the plural rupero/ to the technical phraseology 
of medicine. Even the combination of wuperés xai dvcevrepia is quite usual 
(Hobart, 3f., 52f.). Luke, however, preferred the common form dvgevrépiov 
(Lobeck, ad Phryn. 518). Instead of mapadutixds (Matt. and Mark each 5 
times), Luke always uses rapadeAupévos, as do these four medical authorities 
—Luke v. 18, 24 (variant readings); Acts viii. 7, ix. 338. Instead of the 
poetical expression of Mark v. 29, Luke viii. 44 has gorn pias rod aiparos, 
which is strictly medical throughout. For the accompanying rapaypjpya (10 
times in Luke, 6 or 7 in Acts, elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 19 f.) as a designa- 
tion of immediate curative or destructive action, Hobart, p. 97f., adduces 16 
examples from a single work of Hippocrates, 27 from Galen, and 7 from 
Dioscorides. Similarly éfaidvns, Luke ix. 39 (cf. 11.13; Acts ix. 3, xxii. 6; 
elsewhere only in Mark xiil. 36). émiSrewrau emi tov vidv pov, Luke ix. 38 
(Galen, émiBdérew re or cio tT), and droxwpei (of the abating of disease), also 
find support in medical usage. (2) In the sections peculiar to Luke there 
occur the following words, appearing rarely, or not at all, elsewhere in the 
N.T., but employed in accord with medical usage: x. 30-35, nuavijs (in an 
entirely similar connection in Galen, ed. Kiihn, vi. 850, vil. 602), caradéey, 
tpavpa (rpavparifew, Luke xx. 12; Acts xix. 16; Rev. xiii. 12, 14, on the 
other hand, has wAnyn, which in Luke x. 30, xii. 48, Acts xvi. 23, 33 denotes 
blows), émipereioOar (cf. eripedeias rvxeiv, Acts xxvil. 3; in 1 Tim. iii. 5 quite 
differently expressed), émuyéery €Aavoy Kal oivov. Luke xvi. 20-25, €Axos (Rev. 
xvi. 2 also), Axotoba, ddvvacda (Luke ii. 48; Acts xx. 38 of mental suffer- 
ing); Luke xxii. 44, dywvia, idpos, OpduBor aivaros, caraBaivev. Further, 
dxdeiv, evoxdeiv, mapevoxretvy, Luke vi. 18; Acts v. 16, xv. 19; dvarnpos 
(or dvdrewpos), Luke xiv. 13, 21, and its opposite, ddoxAnpia, Acts iii. 16 ; 
dmowixew, exiixeyv, carapixew, avayvkis, Luke xvi. 24, xxi. 26; Acts iii. 20, 
v. 5, 10, xii. 23 ; avon, Acts xvii. 25, cf. 1.2; eumvéay, Acts ix. 1; ex vee, 
Luke xxiii. 46 (this also in Mark xv. 37, 39); (woyoveiv, Luke xvii. 33; Acts 
vii. 19; dwérecay .. . derides, Acts ix. 18 (Hobart, 39f.) ; ékoracus, Acts x. 10, 
xi. 5, xxii. 17 (in Luke v. 26; Acts 11. 10, on the other hand, as in Mark v. 42, 
xvi. 8, in the sense of astonishment) ; eis paviavy mepirpémev, Acts xxvi. 24 
(the medical writers use rpémey, but also repurpomn) 5 xpaurddn, Luke xxi. 34; 
xpes, Acts xix. 12 in the wider sense (Ionic, according to Galen, but used by 
all the medical men); zpocdoxay (6 times in Luke, 5 in Acts, and elsewhere 
only in two parallels in Matt., and 3 times in 2 Pet. iii. 12-14 ; also rpocdoxia, 
only in Luke xxi, 26; Acts xii. 11) is used in Acts xxviii. 6 quite in Galen’s 
manner, and close to a specifically medical pndev dromoy (Hobart, 162, 289) ; 
cf. also ovdév dromov, Luke xxiii. 41; ri drowov, Acts xxv. 5 (Gromos in any use 
is found elsewhere only in 2 Thess. ili. 2). Also miyumpao@a, xararimrev, 
Onpiov =exLdva, Acts xxviii. 3-6 ; amadddooeoba, Acts xix. 12 (with vdoo as 
subject) ; carahepdpevos Urvw Babei, Acts xx. 9, are medical phrases. Finally, 
cf, dowro. Suaredeire, Acts xxvii. 33, with Galen, dowros dueréAeoev, adiyrou 


VOL. II. a It 


162 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ScareAovo.y, and in Hippocrates as here a dvaredciv for fourteen days, Hobart, 
278. Of. Madan, JThS, 1904, Oct. p. 116, who understands dovros in this 
passage to mean loss of appetite, resulting from sea-sickness. II. Note- 
worthy also is the application to other subjects of words common in 
medicine. If the needle used for surgical purposes is regularly called 
Bedsvn, not pais, and the eye of it is commonly spoken of by the doctors 
as rpjya, not Tpvmnua or Tpypadia, and if we read in Galen rod xara ry 
Bedrsvnv tpnparos or rod dvarpnparos ris Beddvns (Hobart, 60f.), the wording 
of Luke xviii. 25 as compared with Matt. xix. 24, Mark x. 25 (following 
Tischendorf’s text in all three passages), indicates that the writer was a 
physician. If Galen expressly comments on the customary use of dpyai, 
by himself as previously by Hippocrates, to denote the ends (mépara) of a 
bandage (of éemideopor, and often dAdva and d6dvn), it is clear that Acts x. 11, 
xi. 5 were written by a physician. Among the numerous peculiar words 
and phrases used by Luke to which Hobart further adduces parallels, are : 
avadwWdvar emicrodAnv, Acts xxiii. 33, and ov« donpos médus, Acts xxi. 39 (both 
in Hippocrates) ; dovros, dovria, ra orria, Acts vii. 12, from Gen. xlii. 2 (LXX 
aciros) ; dreviCew, ikuds, karaxdelev, Luke iil. 20; Acts xxvi. 10 (Galen with 
év eipxth also); mAnppupa, pyypa, mpoopyyvuml, cuprimrey (Luke vi. 48f,, 
words which occur neither in Matt. vii. 25-27 nor elsewhere in the N.T.), 
ouxdpivos With ovxopopea, Luke xvii. 6, xix. 4, often interchanged in ordinary 
usage, according to Dioscorides. Of course, such words and turns of phrase, 
found elsewhere only in the medical books (cf. also above, p. 82, n. 5; 
p. 129f., n. 1), have no weight in and of themselves, but only in connection 
with the examples previously given. 

6. (P. 147.) That the account, not very flattering to doctors,in Mark v. 26 
was toned down by Luke as a physician, vill. 43 (according to Tischendorf’s 
text, at least), is an unworthy insinuation. Mark himself does not say that 
the condition of the sick woman grew continually worse in consequence of 
the medical treatment, but in spite of it. This in a case continuing for 
twelve years is as natural as the other statement to the effect that the in- 
effectual treatment by constantly changing physicians was a serious burden. 
Here, as elsewhere (cf. above, p. 105), Luke simply avoided Mark’s diffuse- 
ness. The case is the same if one omits farpois—Biov, Luke viii. 48 with BD 
Ss Sah. Arm. ; for, of course, “no one” here means “no physician.” 

7. (P. 148.) Ranxe, Weltgesch.} iii. 1. 170-198, follows Acts in his narra- 
tive, speaks, with reference to chap. xxi. (187), of the “simple account of the 
documents”—and in concluding (191) refers to the entire book as a narrative 
which “combines trustworthiness with simplicity of presentation.” E.Currtius, 
Griechische Gesch. 1. 50, A. 18, was not indeed, as Maass holds, in Orpheus, 1895, 
S. 8, the first to disclose the meaning of Acts xvii. but blundered in trans- 
ferring the scene from Mars Hill to the market-place. Still it is of some 
significance when one, who knows Athens as Curtius does, declares (S. 925) 
that in Acts xvii. “a well-informed witness is giving a faithful account of 
the occurrence. In the sixteen verses of the text there is such an abundance 
of historical material, everything is so pregnant and original, so characteristic 
and full of life, there is such a lack of anything formal and stereotyped, as 
must be the case if one were relating a fictitious story. It is impossible to 
show a single trait which might render deliberate invention in any way 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 163 


probable. One must be familiar with Athens in order to understand the 
account properly.” The altar inscription (xvii. 23), which some who could 
not boast this familiarity have criticised, was cited without hesitation by 
Clement, a native Athenian (Yorsch. ili. 162), Strom. v. 83, and by Origen, 
who had seen the city, tom. x.5%inJo. Atthe time of Didymus (Mai, Nova 
p. Bibl. iv. 2. 139) such an inscription was no longer to be found, but only 
certain forms similar to it with a plural dedication. If one compares with 
this reference Jerome, ad Tit. (Vall. vii. 707), it will at once be seen that 
Jerome is copying from his teacher Didymus, on the one hand, and, on the 
other, from some other Greek who had given the wording of the inscription, 
in all probability Origen (cf. Forsch. ii. 88f., 275 ff., GK, ii. 426ff.). But that 
Jerome, through his blending of information from two sources, contaminated 
the text, appears from a comparison with Oecumenius (Migne, exviii. 237). 
The latter derived from the same source as Jerome, presumably, therefore, 
from Origen, the text: Oeots "Agias kat Evpamns cai AiBins, Oe@ dyvaor@ 
kal €év@, which Jerome, under the influence of Didymus’ remark, altered to 
diis zgnotis et peregrinis. The inscription, which might still be seen at 
Athens in the time of Clement and Origen, had disappeared before the time 
of Didymus (t+ 395) and Jerome, perhaps during the reaction under Julian ; 
ef. Lucian, Philopatris, 8. Among the eminent archeologists who appre- 
ciate the great historical value of Acts should also be mentioned first of all 
W. M. Ramsay, in the works so frequently cited. Tu. Momsen is an un- 
fortunate exception ; vol. i. 67f., n. 15, 392 f.; above, 138, n. 20; NKZ, 1893, 
S. 648 ; 1904, S. 23 ff, 190 ff. 

8. (P. 150.) Hicks (Hxpos. 1890, p. 401 ff.) identified a Demetrius who 
seems to be reckoned with the vewmoujoavres or vewrowol (the letter N is all 
that remains of the title) in an Ephesian incription (Ancient Greek Inscriptions 
of the British Musewm, No. 578, line 6), with the Anpnrpios adpyvpokémos, roev 
vaovs dpyupovs "Apréuidos, Acts xix. 24, and thereupon charges the author of 
Acts with having misunderstood the former title, and so made a silversmith 
of a temple-officer, and invented the manufacture of silver representations 
of the temple of Diana. Ramsay’s refutation, Church in the Rom. Emp? 
p- 112 ff., seems to the present writer to be sufficient. 

9. (P. 152.) The following come under consideration as parallelisms 
between Peter and Paul: The healing of the lame man, iii. 1-10=xiv. 8-10; 
in some measure also iii. 12, x. 26=xiv. 11-18, xxvill. 6; the marvellous 
cure of multitudes, v. 15f.=xix. 11f.; the sorcerers, viii. 18-24=xiii. 8-11; 
the effect of the laying on of hands, vill. 17-19=xix. 6; the raising of the 
dead, ix. 86-41=xx. 7-12; the miraculous release from prison, xii. 3-12 
(v. 18-21)=xvi. 23-40. One hardly knows whether to admire more the 
art shown in the symmetry of construction or the skill that devises scenes 
ever new and radically different, unless all this is rather a faithful reproduc- 
tion of reminiscence and tradition. 

10. (P. 153, 155.) Even in Rev. ii. 14, 20, out of the four divisions of the 
apostolic decree, we find only gayeiv <idoddOura kai mopvedoa referred to, 
and when Christ assures the faithful portion of the Church in Thyatira 
(ii. 24 f.) that He lays upon them no further burden, but simply charges them 
‘to hold fast what they have, we can understand by dAdo Bdpos, according to 
usage and context, not censure or punishment, but only burdensome obliga- 


164 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


tions ; and by that which faithful Christians have hitherto had and held we 
must understand primarily their abstinence in the two points named. These 
a recontrasted, however, with broader obligations of a kindred sort, of course ; 
for it goes without saying that Christ also requires men to abstain from lying, 
theft, murder, and similar sins. The author thus meets the apprehension, 
probably fostered by the Nicolaitans,—the preachers of an immoral liberty— 
(2 Pet. ii. 19, cf. vol. ii. 281 f.), that further limitations and constraints were 
to be laid upon the Gentile Christians. The requirements laid down pre- 
suppose the apostolic decree, and the express setting aside of further restric- 
tions with regard to external conduct presupposes that even before the time 
of Revelation the two remaining items of the decree were no longer observed 
in the Asiatic Churches. In the Dzidache, chap. vi., there is a still more 
explicit reference to other apostolic commands to the Gentiles concerning 
foods, besides the prohibition of meat from idol sacrifices ; these others were 
known to the author from Acts, but their observance was no longer insisted 
upon ; cf. GK, ii. 933f. As a further result of the fact that the prohibition 
of blood and of things strangled was no longer enforceable and had actually 
ceased to be observed, arose the modified interpretations and alterations of 
the text, see above, p. 8 ff. The present writer must not enter here into 
an exhaustive discussion of the decree. It is sufficient to say that pndev 
mréov Bdpos, Acts xv. 28, like ov« dAXo Badpos, Rev. li. 24, can only mean “no 
further burden beyond the obligation which you already bear, and this 
accepted willingly, so that it is in fact no burden.” The Any in both 
passages does not, like # after mAéoy, introduce an exception to the negative 
statement, which would imply that the following requirement was in fact 
an émiBddAew Bapos (Rev. ii. 24), an érOeivar Cvydv (Acts xv. 10), a mapevoyAciv 
(Acts xv. 19); on the contrary, wAjv, as usual, introduces a matter only more 
remotely connected with the contrasted subject of discussion, a matter which 
is not to be excluded by what precedes, This is equally true whether it is 
an independent sentence (Matt. xviii. 7; Luke xxii. 21, 42; Phil. iv. 14; 
Rev. ii. 25—“ yet,” “ however”), or a dependent clause (Acts xx. 23), or a 
single substantive (Acts xxvii. 22—the ship is not a Wvy7) that follows. 

11. (P. 159.) The words avrn éoriv epynpos, Acts viii. 26, are of no service 
in determining the time, though Hug, Hinl. i. 23, mistakenly assuming that 
this was a parenthetic remark of the author—whereas it belongs to the 
address of the angel-——and also that it referred to the city of Gaza, besides 
tacitly inserting a vdv, claimed to find in it a reference to the destruction of 
Gaza by the Jews, a.p. 66 (Jos, Bell. ii. 18. 1). If the second supposition 
were correct, the phrase would more properly point to the time before the 
rebuilding of Gaza, 62 B.c., recalling Strabo, p. 759 (uévovoa épnyos, on which 
see Schiirer, ii. 87 [Eng. trans. 11. i. 70f.]). Plainly, however, the reference 
is not to the city which had no interest for Philip, but to the road between 
Jerusalem and Gaza, which he was to take, and on which he was to meet 
the eunuch as he travelled alone. Not in the sense, however, that of several 
roads leading from Jerusalem to Gaza that is intended, which runs through 
a sparsely inhabited district (as Robinson, Palestine, ii. 644, 748 ; Overbeck, 
Kom. tiber d. Apostelges. on Acts viii. 26)—a linguistic impossibility. The 
remark is expressly made of the one main road—probably that by way of 
Eleutheropolis—in order to indicate to Philip that he is not to proceed this 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE oe 165 


time as a missionary from city to city, preaching to the people, but that he is 
to be prepared for a meeting on the lonely road with something that he does 
not expect. Hofmann’s opinion (ix. 265) that the author would not speak in 
the present of the loneliness of this road at a time when all Palestine had 
been desolated by the Jewish war, would not be in point even if Luke 
were to be regarded as the speaker, and not rather the angel ; for it is not to 
be imagined that all Palestine after 70 was an uninhabited waste. Nor is it 
obvious that after 70, because so long subsequent to the death of Agrippa I. 
(+ 44), Luke (iii. 1) would have had no further occasion to mention Lysanias 
of Abilene (Hofmann, ix. 261). Agrippa 11, during whose reign (circa 
50-100) Luke certainly wrote, received this territory in 53 (Jos. Ant. xx. 
7.1; Bell. ii. 12. 8), and not only does Josephus, but Ptolemy also (v. 15. 22), 
refer to the district by the name of its former possessor. 

12. (P. 159.) For the opinions of the ancients concerning the place of 
composition see above, p. 7f.,n. 7. Until the most recent times, it has 
been argued in favour of Rome that unimportant places in its neighbourhood, 
like Forum Appi and Tres Taberne, Acts xxviii. 15, are assumed to be known. 
It would be a sufficient explanation if Theophilus had at some time made 
a journey to Rome. Troas, Samothrace, Neapolis, Cenchrez, Assos, Mitylene, 
Chios, Samos, Trogyllium (or Trogylia, Cod. D), Cos, Patara, Myra, Adramyt- 
tium, Cnidus, Salome (Acts xvi. 11, xviii. 18, xx. 13-15, xxi. 1, xxvii. 2-7), 
are introduced in the reports of Paul’s journeys in just the same way as the 
noted cities of Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Rome, or 
these unimportant stations on the Appian Way. It cannot be shown that’ 
there is a uniform procedure in this regard. The Palestinian cities Nazareth, 
Juda (Jutta ?), Bethlehem, Capernaum, Nain, Arimathea, and their situa- 
tions, are introduced as unfamiliar (Luke i. 26, 39, ii. 4, iv. 31, vii. 11, 
xxiii. 51), the location of the Gadarene country (Luke viii. 26), the distance 
of the Mount of Olives and the village of Emmaus from Jerusalem, and of 
Lydda from Joppa (Luke xxiv. 13; Acts i. 12, ix. 38) are given, while 
Jericho (Luke xviii. 35), Gaza, Ashdod, Lydda, Joppa, Antipatris, Caesarea, 
Ptolemais, Tyre, Damascus (Acts vill. 26, 40, ix. 2, 32, 38, 40, xx. 3, 7, 
xxiii. 31), are introduced as familiarly as Jerusalem and Antioch. At the 
same time one may infer from those more detailed references that Theophilus 
did not live in Palestine, and from Acts xvi. 12, xvii. 19, 21,—remarks 
which are important for the understanding of the events,—that Luke did not 
assume in Theophilus’ case the same knowledge of conditions in Macedonia 
and Greece that he himself possessed. Kéostlin, Urspr. der synopt. Evv. 8. 
294 ff., and Overbeck, S. Ixviii. ff. have argued for the composition of the 
work in Ephesus, or at least Asia Minor. 


§ 63. RETROSPECT AND FORECAST. 


Of the three historical works investigated up to this 
point, the first is preserved to us only in translation, 
which is for the most part faithful, but not always 
felicitous. ‘The second was not completed ; and the third, 


166 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which was planned to occupy three books, was not 
continued beyond the second. The condition of the 
Church between the years 60 and 80, and the practical 
needs which the three authors of this period desired to 
meet by their writings, were not such as tended to the 
production of finished literary works. Nor could they 
lead to the production of works which meet our need 
for historical information. Even Luke, who in nationality, 
training, and insight is closer than the other evangelists 
to the modern and Western mind, could not have said 
with reference to his work: tod cuyypadéws Epyov & ws 
émpaxOn eirretv (Lucian, Hist. conscr. 39). 

All three of the gospel writers had in view religious 
instruction and religious impression. The character of 
these books was correctly described by the post-apostolic 
Church, when the word evayyédov, evayyédva was applied 
to them. The description was more correct in the case 
of the first three Gospels than of the Fourth. For, while 
the last is addressed to Christian Churches already long 
existant, the first three, each in its own way, are connected 
with the missionary preaching, which was originally called 
To evayyédvov, Matthew concerns himself almost more with 
unbelieving Jews than with his fellow-believers; Luke 
endeavours to win over altogether to the faith and the 
Church a Gentile favourably inclined toward Christianity. 
Hiven Mark in his writing does not deny that he was a 
missionary helper; he has in view primarily new converts 
(vol. ii, 432 ff). And so all three of the Synoptists follow 
closely the main outlines of the history as given in the 
missionary preaching, which covered the activity of Jesus 
after the arrest of the Baptist—from this point onwards 
giving an uninterrupted and progressive account of His 
public ministry up to the time of His death and resurrec- 
tion. As is so often the case in the popular treatment 
of complex historical development, intermediate steps are 
omitted and the whole progress of events so set forth that 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 167 


the movement which began in Galilee ends in Judea 
(Acts x. 37-42, xiii. 23-31, cf. 1. 21f.; see vol. ii. 369f,, 
Been, Sv9itL, Soot. n, 5, 459 ff.). This: doessnot 
mean that the individual writers did not, each in accord- 
ance with his own special point of view, make departures 
from this scheme. For different reasons Matthew and 
Luke did this in their “histories of the childhood.” This 
was omitted by Mark, because it did not fall in with his 
proposed plan. But all three of the evangelists made this 
scheme the basis of their accounts, and generally confined 
themselves within its bounds. From this it is certainly 
not to be inferred that their knowledge was limited to 
this outline—an idea which would mean that the con- 
clusions heretofore reached regarding the authorship and 
origin of the synoptic Gospels are only so many errors. 
The correctness of this negative conclusion would seem 
all the more certain to one convinced of the genuineness 
and trustworthiness of the Fourth Gospel (n. 1). But it. 
has already been observed more than once (vol. ii. 372 f., 
441f., 556f., 605f.) that the premise upon which this 
conclusion rests, namely, that the information of Matthew, 
Mark, and Luke was limited to the material found in 
their respective Gospels, is false. 

As is well known, the principal difference between the 
Fourth Gospel and the other three—a difference which 
has been made use of in the criticism both of John and of 
the ‘‘Synoptists” ever since the second century—is their 
different representation of Jesus’ relation to Jerusalem. 
In the synoptic Gospels He appears here only once during 
the last days of His life, whereas in John there are no less 
than five visits to Jerusalem (ii. 18, v. 1, vii. 14, x. 22, 
xii. 12). He is also represented as working for some time 
in Judea (iii. 22—iv. 3), and His ministry covers at least 
three Passovers after His baptism (ii. 18, vi. 4, xu. 1 ff). 
The opinion that Jesus’ teaching covered only one year— 
which is based upon the synoptic account, and often 


168 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


supported by an appeal to Luke iv. 19, and which was 
frequently. maintained in the ancient Church, notwith- 
standing acquaintance with and acceptance of the Fourth 
Gospel—cannot be maintained even when the Fourth 
Gospel is left out of account. No one of the Synoptists 
gives a chronological statement with regard to Jesus’ first 
appearance which can possibly justify this limitation of 
His ministry. Moreover, according to Matt. xu. 1; 
Mark ii. 23; Luke vi. 1, Jesus witnessed the beginning 
of a harvest while He was in the midst of His Galilean 
ministry, and long before His crucifixion. It is not 
possible to suppose that authors like Matthew, and Mark, 
and also Luke,—authors who nowhere betray evidence of 
stupid ignorance, and who, on the other hand, show them- 
selves to be thoroughly acquainted with Jewish customs 
and with the natural features of Palestine,—thought of 
this scene as taking place in the autumn or winter. They 
knew that the beginning of the harvest was coterminous 
with the Passover season, consequently that between this 
time and the Passover, when Jesus was crucified, at least 
one full year elapsed. Moreover, Luke understood the 
tradition, which he reproduces with the phrase ca@Barw 
Sevteporpot@, to mean that it was the second Sabbath 
reckoned from the first Sabbath of the Jewish “ ecclesi- 
astical”” year—which always fell between the 8th and 
14th of Nisan—on which this event took place, 2.e. it 
was just before the Passover. This is not the place in 
which to prove that this Passover is identical with the 
one mentioned in John vi. 4. The language which Luke 
uses in ill. 23 must also be considered very strange, if he 
was not aware that a number of years elapsed between 
the baptism and death of Jesus. No intelligent writer 
would say of a man who ceased to work at the end of the 
same year in which his work began, “he was when he 
began about thirty years old.” Moreover, if Luke under- 
stood the discourses of Jesus’ which he incorporated in 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 169 


his Gospel, he must have learned from them—if he did 
not know it from other sources—that the year of grace 
foreseen by the prophet in which salvation was to be 
offered to Israel (iv. 19) in its fulfilment covered a number 
of years. Even at the risk of being charged with old- 
fashioned exegesis, the present writer is bound to maintain 
that, according to Luke xiii. 6-9, Jesus, at a time con- 
siderably remote from His crucifixion,—probably during 
the last summer or autumn of His life,—looked back over 
a period of three years, during which God had looked in 
vain for fruit from the preaching of the gospel begun by 
the Baptist and continued by Himself—primarily in 
Jerusalem, the unfruitful fig-tree in the vineyard of Israel 
(n. 2). Nor is it possible to interpret the word in Luke 
xi. 34, which closely follows Luke xii. 6-9—a word 
preserved also in Matt. xxiii. 37—in any other sense than 
that Jesus Himself had often striven in vain through His 
testimony, which was always rejected, to save the people 
of Jerusalem from their threatened doom (n. 3). That the 
public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, described only by 
the ‘‘Synoptists,” was not the only but the last attempt, 
is evidenced by the word which He spoke over the city as 
He rode down from the Mount of Olives (Luke xix. 42), 
“Tf thou hadst known (as do the Galilean disciples) in 
this day (the last opportunity given to thee) the things 
which belong unto peace!” Unless there were earlier 
visits to Jerusalem, not altogether temporary in character, 
the words of Jesus in Matt. xxvi. 55, Mark xiv. 49 
(xa? jpépar, cf. John xviii. 20) would sound strange, and 
one is at a loss to account for the close personal relations 
between Jesus and several persons in and about Jerusalem, 
which are presupposed in Matt. xxi. 3, 17, xxvi. 6, 18, 
mevi-o7 + Mark xi. 3,11, xiv. 8, 13 ff, 51 (vol. 1. 491f£), 
xy. 43; Luke xix. 31, xxiii. 50f. 

Luke shows most clearly that he is entirely free from 
the conception of the ministry of Jesus, which is supposed 


170. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to be based upon the accounts of all three of the 
“ Synoptists.” It has been already seen (above, p. 106 f.) 
that Luke avoids giving the impression, to which support 
is given by the accounts of Matthew and Mark, that all 
Jesus’ activity in Galilee followed the arrest of the Baptist, 
and why this is so. He separates the journey from Judea 
to Galilee, which marks the beginning of this and of all 
Jesus’ public work, from its association with the con- 
clusion of John’s work, and connects this journey directly 
with the baptism and temptation of Jesus (Luke i. 22, 
iv. 1, 14; Johni. 29-11. 11). He says expressly in one 
of the earlier passages of his book (iv. 43f.) that Jesus 
preached, not only in Galilee, but in the synagogues of 
all Palestine (above, pp. 64, 88, n. 18). In x. 38-42 he 
tells of the sojourn of Jesus in the house of the sisters of 
Bethany, near Jerusalem, a sojourn which cannot belong 
to the closing days of His life. 

But why is it Luke alone who relates these facts, and 
why do Matthew and Mark fail to relate formally and in 
detail what evidently they knew? Anyone not satisfied 
with the answer afforded by the particular purpose which 
each of these evangelists had in view, and by their 
common dependence upon the main outlines of the 
missionary preaching, is at liberty to supply a better 
answer. But let him also explain why Matthew and 
Luke tell us nothing of the great and numerous miracles 
which were done in Chorazin and Bethsaida, and which 
are mentioned in Matt. xi. 21, Luke x. 13, before the 
deeds in Capernaum, and why they say nothing about the 
appearance of the risen Jesus to Peter (Luke xxiv. 34), 
and of the earlier relations of the four fishermen in 
Capernaum to Jesus, without which it is impossible 
historically to understand the account in Matt. iv. 18-22; 
Mark i. 16-20. 

The facts here suggested are certainly not satisfactorily 
explained by any one of the constructions of the history 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 171 


of the Gospels hitherto brought to light—constructions 
that contradict the internal testimony of the Gospels and 
the first century tradition regarding their origin, and 
which at the same time leave this tradition and internal 
testimony entirely unexplained. Only when it is shown 
to be probable that the men whose identity is concealed 
by the names Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote after the 
eye-witnesses of the gospel history had passed away, and 
that the investigations to which one of these authors refers 
(Luke i. 3) were limited to the reading of two or three 
earlier writings, can the present writer admit that the 
passing over by the Synoptists of important events, to 
which they make clear reference, is to be explained by 
their dependence upon sources now lost. Even this does 
not solve the problem; it simply pushes it back. The 
question recurs, “‘ Why did these earlier authors, whose 
writings we no longer possess, make such limited use of 
their abundant knowledge ?” 

It remains to be seen whether the investigation of 
the Fourth Gospel confirms or contradicts the conclusions 
heretofore reached. 


1. (P. 167.) P. Ewald, who considers the one-sided choice of material 
by the Synoptists “the chief problem of the Gospels,” assembles on 8. 52 f. 
of his work (Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage, 1890) all that has 
hitherto been pointed out of Johannine material in the synoptic Gospels, 
and adds to it, particularly by his reference to Luke xxii. 24ff., 35 ff., as 
compared with John xiii. ff. 

2. (P. 169.) Rightly conceived in substance, though not in detail, as 
early as by Ephrem, Lv. Conc. Expos. pp. 166f., 183f., 213; Opp., ed. Rom. 
i. 562 (cf. Forsch. i. 68, 261); Bengel, Gnomon ad Le, xiii. 7; Wieseler 
(Chron. Synopse, 202 ; Beitrdge, 165) in opposition to his own instructor in 
exegesis, J. Stockmeyer, Erklirung ausgewihlter Gleichnisse (ed. C. Stockmeyer, 
1897), S. 251-260, and Hofmann, N.7. viii. 351 ff., who reject this interpre- 
tation, the present writer must remark that: (1) The tree is planted in the 
vineyard, the vineyard is expressly spoken of as belonging to the owner of 
the tree, and the gardener is particularly called an duedovpyds, although 
in the parable he has to do only with the fig-tree. It cannot possibly be 
that all this expresses merely the thought that the tree stood on well pre- 
pared soil and in a sheltered position (as Stockmeyer, 8. 254). The vine- 
yard, which is so significantly prominent in the parable, is an established 


172 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


figure for the Jewish people (Isa. v. 1-7, xxvii. 2-6; Matt. xxi. 33-46; Luke 
xx. 9-16). The fig-tree within it, therefore, cannot mean Israel again, but 
only Jerusalem. (2) This is confirmed by the story in Matt. xxi. 18-22; 
Mark xi. 12-14, 19-24, which, in the historical connection, can be applied 
only to Jerusalem. It cannot be mere chance that Luke does not have this 
story, but has this parable as if to take its place ; cf. above, p. 102. (8) That 
Luke himself had Jerusalem in mind is shown by his attaching the parable 
of xiii. 1-5—a passage that refers to two calamities in this city which were 
admonitory to repentance. As there is no note of time in xiii. 6, the 
connection must have been occasioned by the thought relationship between 
the passages. Jerusalem is again mentioned directly afterwards in xiii. 22, 
33-35. (4) As the owner of the vineyard stands for God, and the vine- 
dresser puts in a good word for the tree at the end of the three years, one 
might be inclined to take the three years as denoting the centuries during 
which God had often visited His people seeking fruit (Luke xx. 10ff.). 
But, in the first place, Jerusalem and not Israel is under discussion. Even 
if this city was peculiarly to jblame for the ill-success of these prophetic 
visitations (Luke xiii. 33f.), still the visitations concerned not Jerusalem 
but the whole people. In the second place, Luke represents Jesus as 
speaking immediately afterwards (xiii. 34, n. 3) of His own repeated efforts 
in behalf of Jerusalem. In the third place, the precise period of three 
years seems strangely chosen, and the explanation from Ley. xix. 23 ff. ; 
Judg. ix. 27; Jos. Ant. iv. 8. 19 (Hofmann, viii. 352) is unsatisfactory. 
On the other hand, one cannot identify offhand the three years of the 
passage with the three years of Jesus’ public ministry, or even find an 
allusion in them to the three visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, separated each 
from the other by a year’s interval. The latter finds no support in ver. 7, 
for the owner says simply that three years have now passed since he began 
looking—who knows how often?—to see if the tree would not at last bear 
fruit. (Here, too, we must remember that the fig-tree bears at very different 
seasons, cf. Winer, Realw. i. 367). The former would lead us to reckon the 
three years from the Passover of John ii. 13, and with a correct under- 
standing of the Fourth Gospel they would end with the Passover of John 
xii. 1ff. We should then be transferred by the parable to a point im- 
mediately before the last Passover, about the time of Luke xviii. 31—xix. 28, 
or xix. 41-44, or John xi. 55. But from the surroundings in which Luke 
has placed the parable (cf. also xiii, 31-33) the reader must rather infer that 
a considerable time was yet to elapse before the end. That the fourth year, 
which, from the analogy of the three years, should be in this case a plain 
statement of actual time, should answer in reality to the period of some 
forty years until the execution of judgment upon Jerusalem, is inconceivable. 
Jesus did not announce that this judgment would come in the following 
year, but simply that it would be within the experience of His con- 
temporaries. We must, therefore, seek another starting-point in the count 
of years, namely, that indicated in Luke iii. 1-6. According to Luke 
himself, Jesus represented the appearance of John the Baptist as the 
beginning of the new epoch of revelation (xvi. 16, ef. iii, 18, vii. 27-35, 
xx. 83-7; Actsi. 5,22). Through John, too, God had sought for fruit, and 
had threatened the destruction of the barren trees (iii. 8 f.), but without any 


THE WRITINGS OF LUKE 173 


effect upon the leaders of the people (vii. 30, xx. 4-7; Matt. xxi. 24-32), 
whose chief seat was at Jerusalem. The rulers there rejected the double 
testimony of the Baptist and of Jesus (John iii. 11, v. 33-36). To give 
John’s testimony a peculiar reference to Jerusalem was all the more 
warranted, as he had never worked in Galilee, but always in the neighbour- 
hood of the city (Matt. iii. 1,5; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3; John i. 28, iii. 23- 
iv. 1, x. 40). John appeared several months at least, and perhaps a whole 
year, before Jesus’ first visit at the feast in Jerusalem (John ii. 13). Jesus, 
therefore, can have spoken this parable about the time of the Passover next 
before His last—the one He did not attend (John vi. 4)—or, as the present 
writer considers more probable, about the time of the following Feast of 
Tabernacles, when He had already fixed His eye upon a later festival as the 
time of decision (John vii. 8). Not all hope has disappeared as yet; Jesus 
begs a further respite for Jerusalem—may God still have patience with the 
unfruitful fig-tree in this fourth year, now beginning or already begun. 
When this year also is spent, Jesus speaks and acts quite differently (Luke 
xix. 41-44; Mark xi. 12-14), 

3. (P. 169.) While Strauss, Leben Jesu krit. bearb. (1835) i. 444, cf. Leb. 
Jesu fiir das Volk, 8. 247f., was unprejudiced enough to recognise that 
Matt. xxiii. 37 (=Luke xiii. 34) presupposed repeated efforts by Jesus in 
Jerusalem, Steinmeyer, Apologet. Beitr. iv. 219, sought to refer the moadxis 
to the many summons to repentance which “the grace of God” had addressed 
to Jerusalem through the prophets and finally through Jesus as well. But 
the speaker is not “the grace of God,” nor, as others have dreamed, “the 
wisdom of God,” but Jesus Himself and no other. Still more impossible is 
the favourite application of the words to the attempts so far made to convert 
the Jewish people at large, for (1) the children (sons, daughters, daughter) 
of Jerusalem or Zion in Isa. i. 8, iil. 16, iv. 4, xxxvii. 22; Zech. ix. 9; 
Ps. clxix.2; Luke xix. 44, xxiii. 28; Matt. xxi. 5; John xii. 15, are the 
inhabitants of that city ; so that to put upon Jesus’ lips the theological phrase, 
based on an extended allegory, which Paul uses in Gal. iv. 25, is the more 
inadmissible because the context in Luke xiii. 31-35 distinguishes definitely 
between Jerusalem and other sections of the Holy Land. In Matt. xxiii. 37 
also the city is first addressed twice by name and in the singular, and not 
until her children have been mentioned do we come, with 7eAncare, to the 
plural address. Just as plainly as the “thou” is identical with the “ye,” 
is Jerusalem (and the Jewish people is never called by that name) identical 
with her children, that is, the city with its inhabitants. But (2), and most 
important, woodxis does not mean “how long” or “for how many months 
or years,” but “ how often.” 


X. 
THE WRITINGS OF JOHN. 


§ 64. THE TRADITION. 


OnE who has extricated himself from a labyrinth is wont 
to breathe a sigh of relief and set out with increased 
courage upon the way which he has farther to pursue. 
That is the natural feeling which the investigator has in 
passing from his study of the oldest historical literature 
of the apostolic age to the latest writings of the N.T. 
which bear the name of John, in particular to the Gospel 
of John, which follows the other three Gospels and is 
known as the Fourth. In the case of the others the 
inexperienced observer is confused by a mass of material 
practically identical in contents and language, the 
similarities of which are as difficult to explain as the 
corresponding differences. In the Fourth Gospel, on the 
other hand, we have an entirely distinct work, which 
never gives the impression made by the earlier Gospels, 
of being only another variation of the common primitive 
form. 

Because John is an independent work, it follows at 
once that traces of its existence and influence in the 
Church are much clearer than in the case of the Synoptics 
(n. 1). When the reader finds, for example, in Clement 
of Rome, or Polycarp, a saying of Jesus which is to be 
found in similar form in Matthew, and also in Mark or 
Luke, he is unable to determine from which one of these 
sources it is taken, or whether it may not possibly be 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 175 


derived from a lost Gospel, or even from the oral tradition. 
That which bears the Johannine stamp cannot be mis- 
taken for or confused with anything else. It must also 
be remembered that the tradition concerning the origin 
of John’s writings goes back much nearer to the time 
and place of their origin than does the tradition con- 
cerning the origin of the other historical books. We 
have no tradition concerning Matthew and Luke which 
can be proved to have originated in the place where these 
books were written and among the disciples of the men 
who wrote them. In fact we are compelled to conjecture 
the place where these books originated from their contents 
alone, or from traditions of a comparatively late date. 
The situation with regard to Mark is not much more 
favourable as regards this point. The Johannine writings, 
on the other hand, originated in the province of Asia, 
and for this information we are not dependent upon 
tradition alone. It is unmistakably affirmed in Revelation, 
and the tradition is entirely confirmed in this point by 
the contents of the Gospel and the Epistles. In this same 
province also we find living until far on in the second 
century personal disciples of the John of Ephesus, to 
whom these writings are ascribed. Some of these are 
bishops, as Papias in Hierapolis and Polycarp in Smyrna ; 
others are not mentioned by name, but associated by 
Irenzeus, the personal disciple of Polycarp, with Papias 
and Polycarp, and called “the elders” (of mpecBvrepos, 
seniores). The fact that John lived to an extreme age 
and was still alive at the beginning of Trajan’s reign 
(98-117), dying, therefore, about the year 100, and the 
fact that Polycarp died in the year 155 (Feb. 23) at a 
very great age,—86 years after his baptism, which must 
have taken place, therefore, in the year 69,—gives us an 
unbroken tradition from Jesus to Ireneeus, 7.e. from 30 to 
180, with only two links between them, namely, John of 
Ephesus and Polycarp of Smyrna. Naturally there were 


176 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


numerous other lines of connection between Irenzeus and 
his contemporaries and the representatives of the apostolic 
generation in Asia Minor (Philip in Hierapolis, Aristion, 
see vol. i. 436 f.), and doubtless in most cases there were 
more links in the chain than in the case of this one of 
four links, which we are able to establish biographically 
(n. 2). 

The first clear traces of the influence of the Fourth 
Gospel upon the thought and language of the Church 
are found in the Epistles of Ignatius (about the year 110). 
How unmistakable these traces are may be inferred from 
the fact that not infrequently this dependence of Ignatius 
upon John has been used as an argument against the 
genuineness and antiquity of the Ignatian letters. It is 
possible, if one is disposed to do so, to assume that the 
resemblance of passages in Clement of Rome (czrca 96), 
in the Shepherd of Hermas (circa 100), in the Didache 
(circa 110), in the so-called Second Epistle of Clement 
(circa 120), in the Hpistle of Barnabas (circa 180), in 
the Protevangelium of James, and the fragments of 
Basilides, to passages in the Fourth Gospel presupposes 
on more than the pre-existence of Johannine ideas and 
expressions, but in the majority of these cases the more 
natural explanation is acquaintanceship with the Fourth 
Gospel (GK, i. 767, 906-912, 915). On the other hand, 
it is certainly proved that Valentinus, who must have 
developed his system before the year 140, outlined his 
list of eeons under the dominating influence of the 
Johannine prologue (GK, i. 736-739), and that the 
entire school of Valentinus valued the Fourth Gospel 
highly, and regarded it as the work of an apostle. One 
of the leaders of this school, Heracleon, wrote a com- 
mentary on this Gospel inthe year 160, important 
fragments of which are preserved to us by Origen (GK, i. 
732-739, ii. 956-960). The whole of John xiii. 4—xv. 34, 
xv. 19, possibly also portions of John vi. 33/f., were 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 177 


found in Marcion’s Gospel, and it cannot be proved that 
these passages were incorporated into this Gospel by his 
disciples and not by Marcion himself, about 145, with 
whose ideas they agreed perfectly (GK, i. 663 ff., 675— 
680). Not a few passages were appropriated from the 
Fourth Gospel by others, who prepared new Gospels and 
apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, e.g. the unknown author 
of the Gospel of Peter (about 150), and Leucius, the 
alleged disciple of John, in the Acts of John and of Peter 
(between 160 and 170). Among other things, Leucius 
represents Peter as developing his ideas concerning the 
limited value of the written Gospel on the basis of John 
xxi. 25 and 1 John i-iv. (forsch. vi. 195f.). Justin, 
who wrote the works, which have come down to us, 
between 150 and 160, knew the Fourth Gospel as the 
composition of apostles and their disciples, which was also 
in use in religious services in his time (GK, i. 516-5383). 
Since Justin lived in Ephesus between 130 and 135, and 
became a Christian there, his knowledge concerning the 
Gospels and their use in the Church was derived from 
this period and region. 

From the beginning of the controversy about the 
time of the Easter celebration, which broke out in the 
province of Asia between 160 and 170 a.p., the equal 
authority of the Fourth Gospel with the other three was 
presupposed. It is impossible to understand the Mon- 
tanistic movement which started in the year 157 (or 156), 
except in the light of the Johannine discourses about the 
Paraclete. When (170 a.D.), in opposition to Montanism, 
a party, to which Epiphanius foolishly gave the name 
Alogi, declared the Johannine writings to be the work 
of the heretic Cerinthus, they stated their opinion of them 
in the sentence, ‘‘They are not worthy to be in the 
Church” (Epiph. Her. li. 3). They made no effort to 
prove that these writings did not make their appearance 
in the Church until after the death of John, but, in 


VOL, III, I2 


178 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ascribing their composition to a contemporary of John’s, 
they admitted that they had been “in the Church” since 
the close of the first century. The Asiatic “elders” of 
Irenzeus appeal to the Johannine sayings of Jesus, as 
well as to the synoptic sayings (Iren. v. 36. 2; GK, 
i. 782). The appendix to the Gospel of Mark, which at 
latest was probably added about the year 150, is based, 
among other passages, upon John xx., and also upon the 
work of Papias (see vol. ii. 471-476). The fragments of 
the latter work also show some traces of familiarity with 
the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). In a fragment preserved only in 
Latin, the genuineness of which there is no other reason 
to suspect, Papias expressly says that John gave his 
Gospel to the Church during his lifetime (n. 4). The 
fact that Eusebius has not preserved for us this testimony 
of Papias is easily explained by its manifest triviality. 
As a matter of fact the sense of the fragment is excellent ; 
since, when superficially considered, the appendix, and 
especially John xxi. 24f., might make it appear as if the 
Fourth Gospel were an Opus posthumum, edited by the 
friends of the author. 

There are two ancient accounts of the origin of the 
Fourth Gospel. One of these was found by Eusebius in 
Clement of Alexandria, and is preserved to us only in 
indirect discourse, and apparently in a very much 
abbreviated form. It is referred by Clement himself 
to his teachers (of mpecBirepos), as are the similar state- 
ments concerning Mark (n. 5). According to this 
account, John, who was the last of the evangelists, 
considering that the human and external side (of the 
gospel history) had been set forth in the (already existing) 
Gospels, at the suggestion of his friends, and under the 
influence of the Spirit of God, prepared a spiritual Gospel. 
The other account, manifestly also abbreviated and more 
of the character of a legend, is found in the Muratorian 
’ Canon (n. 6). According to this account, John replies to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 179 


his fellow disciples and the bishops, who exhort him to 
write a Gospel, with the suggestion that they fast with 
him for three days and await a revelation. On the very 
next night it is revealed to the apostle Andrew that John 
shall write all down in his own name, but that all the 
others (disciples present) shall revise his writing. If, as 
is probably the case, this account was derived from 
Leucius’ Acts of John, which were written in Asia Minor 
between 160 and 170 a.p. (n. 6), it is possible that many 
similar but more extravagant things which are reported 
by later writers concerning the origin of John were 
largely derived from this same book of Leucius, which, 
notwithstanding its Gnostic character, was much read. 
Most of these accounts agree in representing the bishops 
of Asia as sent by their Churches to urge John to write, 
and in representing the prevailing heresies as creating a 
feeling that a new Gospel was needed. By some no 
specific heresies are mentioned (Cat. in Jo., n. 4); others 
mention Cerinthus and Ebion (Epiph. Her. li. 2. 12; 
Jerome, Vir. Jil. ix.). Quite anachronistically mention 
is made also of Valentinus (Victorianus on Rev. x1. 1), or 
in lieu of all others, Marcion (Argum. in Jo., see n. 4). 
But even Irenzeus, who elsewhere shows no traces of this 
legendary story, is confident that John wrote his Gospel 
in conscious opposition to his contemporary Cerinthus, 
and the still earlier Gnostic teaching of Nicolaus (n. 7). 
All tradition which is ancient and in general worthy 
of notice agrees in representing John as writing after 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, at a great age, and during 
his residence in the province of Asia, or more speci- 
fically in Ephesus (n. 8). As already noticed, this 
is frequently combined with the tradition held by the 
teachers of Clement, according to which John wrote his 
Gospel with the other three in view (n. 8 end). ‘This is 
confirmed by the fact that the John of Ephesus, to whom 
the Gospel is attributed, did actually express his views 


180 INI'RODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with regard to the Gospel of Mark, and by the fact that, 
during his lifetime and in the region where he lived, the 
original of the Gospel of Matthew was orally interpreted 
in religious services, and finally replaced by a written 
translation (see vol. ii. 433-444, 509-517). 

The tradition of the Church is also unanimous in 
representing the evangelist John as at the same time the 
author of Revelation and the Johannine Epistles—and as 
none other than the apostle John, the son of Zebedee. 
John the evangelist is called a disciple of the Lord both 
by teachers of the Church and by heretical writers, and 
by these same persons he is sometimes called an apostle 
(n. 9). The first designation is the more natural, since 
the writing of a Gospel is not of itself the function of an 
apostle, and since the significance and trustworthiness of 
a Gospel depend very much upon its author’s having been 
an eye-witness of the facts he records, but not at all upon 
his apostleship. Furthermore, there was no need fre- 
quently to describe John as one of the twelve apostles, 
since John, surnamed Mark, was known in the Gentile 
Christian Church only by the latter name, and since down 
to the time of Dionysius of Alexandria the Church was 
acquainted with only one distinguished John of the 
apostolic age, namely, the son of Zebedee, the disciple 
and apostle, the guardian of the Asiatic Churches during 
the last decades of the first century, the teacher of 
Polycarp and of Papias (see vol. ii. 483 f.). 

Until after the death of Origen, all the Johannine 
writings in the N.T. were assigned by all the Fathers of 
the Church to the same author without question or 
explanation. When, as is occasionally the case, attention 
is called to the identity of the author of some one of the 
Johannine writings, it is done either for the purpose of 
recalling the various gifts for which the Church was 
indebted to this one John, or for the purpose of honour- 
ing him, or in order to indicate special relations existing 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 181 


between the Gospel and Revelation, or between the 
Gospel and the Epistles. It is never done in order to 
establish the identity of the author, as if this were not 
self-evident (n. 10), This was the point of view even of 
the Alogi. They simply rejected “the books of John” 
(n. 11). Naturally their polemic was directed mainly, if 
not entirely, against the two principal Johannine works, 
—the Gospel and Revelation,—since the Montanists, in 
opposition to whom their opinion was developed, based . 
their views upon the Paraclete passages in the Fourth 
Gospel and upon the visions of Revelation. Conse- 
quently Hippolytus writes, in opposition to the Alogi, 
his apology ‘“‘for the Gospel according to John and for 
Revelation.” But it must not be forgotten that the 
criticism of the Alogi applied to all the Johannine writings, 
and that they regarded the John, whose mask Cerinthus 
assumed, as an apostle. It was not until much later that 
the attempt was made, on the basis of one accepted work 
of the apostle John, to deny his authorship of another 
writing bearing his name, and to assign it to another 
John. This was impossible in the year 170, because at 
that time only one John who belonged to the apostolic 
age was known. And even as late as 210, when Caius 
of Rome accepted the negative conclusions of the Alogi 
with reference to Revelation, but rejected them in the 
case of the Gospel, he did not distinguish between an 
apostle John who wrote the Gospel and another John who 
was the author of Revelation, but maintained the opinion 
that it was not John but Cerinthus, under the mask of 
“a oreat apostle,” who wrote Revelation (n. 11 end). 
The history of the criticism of Revelation, and later of 
the shorter letters, is an important chapter in the history 
of the Canon, but does not concern directly the investi- 
gation of the tradition relative to these books: for the 
reason that from the very outset this criticism is a ‘con- 
scious denial of every tradition. But even this is an 


182. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


indirect’ witness to the one existing tradition regarding 
the Johannine authorship of these books. 

Justin, who, as we have already seen, became a 
Christian in Ephesus between 130 and 135 a.D., says 
that, like Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the author of Genesis and 
the Psalter, the Christian John, the apostle of Christ, 
received a revelation and prophesied the millennial reign 
of Christ and the Christians and the general resurrection 
that is to follow (n. 12). The elders of Irenzeus, “‘ who 
had seen John face to face,” endeavoured to find out the 
meaning of the number 666 in Rev. xiii. 18, interpreted 
other passages of the book, and thereby fixed their own 
eschatological views (n. 13). According to the testimony 
of those who saw his work, Papias, a disciple of John of 
Ephesus, affirmed the “trustworthiness” (76 d&dmtoros) 
of Revelation, made explanatory comments on some 
passages of the book, and, most significantly of all, 
derived his belief in the millennium from this source. 
Mark, the Valentinian, who lived in Asia Minor about 
the year 160, fed upon the mysteries of Revelation. 
Melito of Sardis wrote a book on Revelation about the 
year 170. In short, we have an unusually large number 
of witnesses to the fact that between the years 100 and 
180 Revelation was highly esteemed in the Churches of 
Asia, to which it was originally directed (Rev. i. 4, 11), 
and that it was regarded as the work of John of Ephesus, 
who, at the very latest, from 130 onwards, was generally 
held to be one of the twelve apostles. Between 170 and 
220 we find Revelation circulated and accepted in all 
parts of the Greek and Latin Church as the work of the 
apostle and evangelist John. 

It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the circulation 
of Revelation outside of the province of Asia cannot be 
traced back as far as the circulation of the Gospel. With 
the exception of Papias, the only writer before Justin who | 
shows familiarity with Revelation is the author of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 183 


Epistle of Barnabas, who wrote about the year 180 (GK, 
i.954f.). The absence of clear reminiscences of Revelation 
in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the author of 
the sermon bearing the name of Clement (2 Cor.), might 
be explained as an accident. But when no reference is 
made to it in a great apocalypse like the Shepherd of 
Hermas (circa 100), and by the author of the Didache 
(probably circa 110), in an extended teaching concerning 
the end of the world (chap. xvi.), it is strong proof that 
Revelation was not yet in circulation in the regions where 
these works were written, 7.e. in Rome and (probably) 
Alexandria, or at least it had not yet won its place in 
these large Churches. This agrees with the tradition 
concerning the twme when Revelation was written. Ina 
context in which he appeals constantly to the authority 
of the Asiatic elders, the disciples of John (v. 5. 1, 30. 1, 
33. 8, 4, 86. 1-3), Irenzeus says positively that the vision 
of Revelation “was seen” shortly before he was born, 
near the close of the reign of Domitian (died September 
96) (n. 14). <A date so definite as this, and one that 
could not be derived by exegesis from Revelation itself, 
would be significant, even if found in a later writer, and 
even if Irenzeus did not testify that this was the common 
view among the personal disciples of the author of Revela- 
tion. It is confirmed, not only by the indications of the 
date of its own composition to be found in Revelation, but 
by the above mentioned fact that outside of Asia Minor 
there is as yet no trace of the influence of Revelation upon 
the Church in the literature dating from between 90 and 
120 a.p. It is not until later that traces of it are found. 
The correctness of the date is also confirmed by all those 
traditions which refer the exile of John upon Patmos to 
his extreme old age, or which describe Revelation as the 
latest, or one of the latest, writings in the N.T. On the 
other hand, all the differing views as to the date of the 
composition of Revelation to be found in the literature of 


184 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Church are so late and so manifestly confused, that 
they do not deserve the name of tradition (nn. 8, 10, 14). 

There are three Epistles which in the tradition bear 
the name of John. The longest of these is without any 
greeting, and there is nothing in the course of the letter 
which definitely identifies the author. In the place 
usually occupied by the name of the writer, the author 
of the two shorter Epistles calls himself o rpecBvrepos—a 
title which is used as a proper name—instead of by his 
own name. Nevertheless, except by the Alogi, who denied 
the Johannine authorship of these Epistles, and ascribed 
them to Cerinthus (above, 181, and n. 11), no one of these 
Epistles was ever attributed to an author of another name 
than John. It follows, therefore, that this tradition must 
have originated in the same circle in which the letters 
originated, from which also they were circulated in the 
Church. According to Eusebius, Papias, the disciple of 
‘the presbyter whose name was John” (vol. ii. 451 ff.), 
quoted, or adopted, passages from 1 John. In the case 
of his companion Polycarp, we ourselves can prove as 
much (n. 15). Both the disciples of John show traces of 
their familiarity with the shorter Epistles. Naturally, 
these shortest writings in our N.T. are seldom quoted. 
Their history is also not a little obscured through a 
widespread custom of early writers, by which they were 
accustomed to speak of the Epistle of John or of Peter, 
or of the Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians or to the 
Thessalonians, even when there was more than one letter 
by the same author or to the same readers (n. 16). 
Because of their brevity, 2 and 3 John would never have 
circulated beyond the first readers and have come down to 
us, if from the first they had not been connected with 
1 John, and if they had not had the support of this more 
extended writing, which was full of important teachings. 
Without such connection with a longer writing, or a place 
in a collection of writings, or an insertion in an historical 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 185 


work, such fragments are apt to be scattered to the winds. 
As a matter of fact we meet 2 and 3 John in Alexandria, 
Rome, and Gaul at the beginning of the second century. 
At that time, and for a long time afterwards, it was only 
their relation to the Canon that was uncertain. The 
Syrian Church, which at first had none of the catholic 
Kpistles in its N.T., afterwards, when the redaction of the 
Peshito was made, accepted only the three longest, James, 
1 Peter, and 1 John. It was not until much later that 
the four shorter Epistles were accepted. At the time when 
the Muratorian fragment was written, 2 and 3 John and 
Jude were found “in the Catholic Church” in Rome, 2.e. 
in the N.T. of the Roman Church, which was still in 
Greek. But there was no such clear witness in them of 
their Johannine origin as in 1 John, the relation of which 
to the Gospel is assumed in 1 John i. 1-4. Perhaps it 
was not known in Rome that o mpecRurepos was a name 
given to the apostle John (n. 17). This uncertainty may 
explain why 2 and 3 John were probably not found in the 
oldest Latin Bible, and why, as late as the middle of the 
fourth century, the effort to introduce these letters in 
the Latin Church met with opposition in Africa. Not very 
long after this there appeared also in Alexandria, where 
Clement had commented upon 2 John, without suggesting 
any doubts as to its Johannine origin, and probably also 
on 3 John, the same questioning which had appeared in 
Rome, or it seemed best to take account of the omission 
of the shorter Epistles from the canon of other Churches. 
“Not all regard 2 and 3 John as genuine,” says Origen, 
but without attaching any great weight to the objection. 
The result was, however, that Origen and Dionysius of 
Alexandria described only 1 John as a catholic Epistle, 
and that Eusebius reckoned 2 and 3 John among the 
antilegomena. It is worth noting that Dionysius in his 
efforts to discover a second John of the apostolic age, to 
whom the authorship of Revelation might be assigned, did 


186. INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


not think of ascribing to the same author the shorter 
Epistles about which questions had been raised. Likewise 
Eusebius, who thought that the desired author needed by 
his hypothesis was to be found in the presbyter John of 
Papias, commended this discovery only to those who could 
not ascribe Revelation to the apostle John. In the case 
of 2 and 8 John, he contents himself with the suggestion 
that they may have been written by some John other than 
the evangelist. It is not until Jerome that we meet with 
the definite statement that many regarded the presbyter 
John, who was to be distinguished from the apostle as the 
author of 2 and 3 John. But in both the chapters where 
this statement is made Jerome simply copies Eusebius 
without scruple (n. 18). 

There is no tradition concerning the occasion of the 
Johannine Epistles and the time of their composition. The 
assumption that 1 John was written after the Gospel was 
simply the result of a very questionable interpretation of 
1 John i. 1-4 and of the making of this passage refer to 
the Gospel. In the same way the statements which we 
meet incidentally, that 1 John was written after Revela- 
tion, or that Revelation was written after the Gospel, or 
vice versa (nn. 8, 11), have not the value of traditions 
regarding the chronology of these books. The only things 
which do have this value are (1) the report that John 
wrote Revelation on the island of Patmos between the 
years 93 and 96, and (2) that John wrote his Gospel in 
Ephesus at an advanced age. 

The reports regarding the person of the apostle and 
author John may be divided into four classes: (1) The 
express statements of the N.T. regarding the apostle John ; 
(2) those statements of the N.T. which are to be referred 
to the same John, on the presupposition that he is the 
author of the writings attributed to him; (8) the reports 
concerning the John of Ephesus which originated among 
the apostle’s disciples in Asia; (4) the legendary accounts, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 187 


Since John is regularly mentioned second, when he is 
associated with his brother James, we may assume that 
he was the younger of the two sons of Zebedee. The 
tradition that he was the youngest of all the apostles is 
to be constantly met, and is probably much older than 
the sources enable us to prove (n. 19). The family in 
Capernaum was not poor. The father carried on a 
fishing business with the aid of his sons and a number 
of hired servants (Mark i. 20). Whereas the name of the 
father occurs frequently only because the sons are called 
the sons of Zebedee, in order to distinguish them from 
numerous other persons bearing these very common 
names, the mother is very prominent. We learn that 
her name was Salome only by a comparison of Matt. 
xxvil. 56 with Mark xv. 40 (cf. xvi. 1). She was one of 
the women who accompanied Jesus and the apostles on 
their preaching journeys and on the last journey to 
Jerusalem, and who used their own means to defray 
the expenses of the support of the large company of 
travellers (Mark xv. 41; Luke viii. 3). She is also 
mentioned among the women who purchased spices to 
embalm the body of Jesus after it was laid in the grave 
(Mark xvi. 1; cf. Luke xxiii. 55-xxiv. 1). All this goes 
to show that, as regards its prosperity and social position, 
the family of Zebedee is to be compared with that of Chuza 
(Luke viii. 3), the financial officer of Herod, or even of 
Joseph of Arimathea, rather than with that of Joseph and 
Mary (Luke ii. 24; cf. ii. 7). But these two families were 
closely related. Since it is extremely unlikely that two 
sisters would have each been called Mary, we may assume 
that four, not three, women are mentioned in John xix. 25. 
It is also very natural to identify these four women with 
the women mentioned in Matt. xxvu. 56; Mark xv. 40f. 
and the unnamed sister of the mother of Jesus, mentioned 
in John, with Salome (n. 20). The sons of Zebedee were, 
therefore, own cousins of Jesus, and if Mary and Salome 


188 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


were relatives of Elizabeth, who was a priest’s daughter 
(Luke 1 36), were, like Jesus, relatives of John the 
Baptist. While the brothers of Jesus continued to main- 
tain at least a neutral attitude towards Him (John vii. 3), 
after the arrest of the Baptist Jesus’ cousins became per- 
manently His disciples (Mark i. 19; Matt. iv. 21; Luke 
v. 9), and after they were chosen among the Twelve they 
with Peter are repeatedly distinguished by Jesus as His 
most intimate disciples (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 33; Matt. 
xvii. 1, xxvi. 87; Luke viii. 51, ix. 28). Occasionally a 
special commission is given John and Peter alone (Luke 
xxii. 8). Weare not told what it was that led Jesus to 
give the brothers the name, “Sons of thunder” (Mark 
iii. 17, vol. i. 16), but what is said of them in Mark ix. 
38-40, Luke ix. 49-55 (above, p. 89, n. 19), shows that 
they had intense zeal for their Master's honour, and were 
possessed by burning anger whenever any insult was 
offered Him. But this was accompanied by the over- 
weening ambition which led them and their mother to 
ask for the place nearest to the throne of the Son of David 
in His glorious kingdom (n. 21). For both these exhibi- 
tions of unsanctified zeal they were earnestly rebuked by 
Jesus ; but He does not for this reason cease to trust them, 
nor is their loyalty and that of their mother to Him 
thereby shaken. Jesus’ prophecy that they must suffer 
like Himself (Mark x. 38f.; Matt. xx. 22 f.) was fulfilled 
in James’ case at Easter 44 (Acts xii. 2). His execution 
by Herod Agrippa I. is the only thing which is recorded of 
him in Acts. On the other hand, John is represented as 
being from the first along with Peter one of the leaders in 
the Palestinian Church (Acts ii. 1-iv. 23, vill. 15-25). But 
always when they appear together Peter is the speaker 
(Acts il. 4, 12, iv. 8, v. 29, vill. 20), and frequently, 
without mention of John, Peter is represented as the 
undisputed leader of the early Church. The fact, how- 
ever, that after the death of his brother and the assumption 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 189 


of the leadership of the mother Church by James, the 
brother of Jesus, John, together with Peter and James, 
occupied a distinguished place in the Jewish Church is 
evidenced by Gal. ii. 9. 

The picture of John which we get from these definite 
statements is essentially enlarged by what is said in the 
writings attributed to him—provided the interpretation of 
their testimony to their author, which is given below, 
proves to be correct. This explains at once why the sons 
of Zebedee, after the arrest of the Baptist, in response to 
the brief command of Jesus that they give up their 
business and attach themselves to Him with a view to 
becoming His future helpers in His calling, were willing to 
obey at once and unconditionally (Mark i. 20; Matt. iv. 
22; Luke v. 11). Both were disciples of their relative 
John, and at the suggestion of their former master attached 
themselves to Jesus, when He returned again to the place 
of baptism not long after His own baptism, forming with 
Peter and Andrew, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), 
the first group of Jesus’ disciples. This enables us to 
understand why, in all four of the lists of the apostles in 
the N.T., the first five, and, with the exception of Acts i. 
13, where the name of Thomas is inserted between Philip 
and Bartholomew, all six occupy the foremost places. 
From the moment when they attached themselves to Jesus 
they were constantly associated with Him, both in their 
native city Capernaum, where Jesus settled with His 
family (John ii. 12), and upon a journey to Jerusalem to 
attend a feast, as well as during a somewhat protracted 
residence in Judea (John i. 13-1v. 2). When sub- 
sequently Jesus, because of the continued activity of the 
Baptist, abandoned His work in Judea and withdrew into 
Galilee and the quietness of private life, determined to 
await the further development of events (John iv. 1-8, 
43 ff.), His disciples went with Him and in all probability 
resumed for a time their usual occupations, until Jesus 


190 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


recognised the imprisonment of the Baptist (cf. John v. 
35) as the signal for the resumption of His work, and sum- 
moned His disciples to share it. If the unnamed disciple 
in John xiii. 23-26 (xviii. 15f.), xix. 26, 27, 35, xx. 2-10, 
xxi. 7, 20-25 is the apostle John, this confirms at once 
the statement of the other Gospels, that he was one of the 
apostles ‘who were most intimate with Jesus. The state- 
ment that he had relations with the high priest Caiaphas, 
and that he was known to the servants in the high 
priest’s house, is new and surprising, if John xvi. 15 f. 
refers to him and not to his brother James (see below, § 65) ; 
but in either case is less surprising when we remember 
that Zebedee’s wife was a priest’s daughter, and that the 
family, while not one of the highest social standing and 
broadest culture (Acts iv. 13), did belong to the prosperous 
middle class. The statement in Acts iv. 13 also proves 
that John, like Peter, had been known by sight to some of 
the high priestly circle even before Jesus’ death. The 
statement that John, with his mother Salome, ventured to 
approach near to the cross during the last moments of 
Jesus’ life (John xix. 25 ff., 35), is neither confirmed nor 
contradicted by Matt. xxvii. 55f.; Mark xv. 40f; Luke 
xxiii. 49. But it will be observed that Mark mentions 
Salome among the women who at this time watched the 
cross from afar, and that Luke mentions, besides the 
women, also the men who were friends of Jesus. If John 
was a near relative of Jesus, and if more than this his 
family was in comparatively good circumstances, it is easy 
to understand why Jesus entrusted His mother to John’s 
care, and why he took her into his family (xix. 26f.). 
The contributions made to the history of John’s life by 
John xxi. will be discussed later (§ 66). 

The three Epistles show that when they were written 
John was a teacher and occupied a position of leadership 
in a group of Christian Churches, the main constituency of 
which did not owe their conversion to his preaching, and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 1g! 


that they were Gentile Christian Churches. From 
Revelation we learn that he occupied this position in the 
Churches of the province of Asia. 

The traditions current among the disciples of John in 
Asia concerning the last period of his life, so far as they 
relate to the origin of his writings, have already been 
established (above, p. 174 ff.). There is, however, some 
further matter of importance for the criticism of these 
writings. According to the testimony of Irenzeus, his 
disciple Polycarp, who became a Christian in the year 69 
(z.e. was baptized in that year), was “made a disciple by 
apostles,” which means that he was not a small child when 
he was baptized, but was converted sometime during his 
boyhood by apostles and afterwards baptized (n. 22). 
Irenzeus repeatedly mentions a number of apostles and 
also other personal disciples of Jesus with whom Polycarp 
was in constant intercourse during his youth. Evidently 
men like Philip and Aristion are meant (see vol. ii. 452 f.). 
But again and again Irenzeus mentions John as the prin- 
cipal teacher of Polycarp, and of Papias and of the other 
Asiatic elders. Consequently at the latest he must have 
taken up his residence in the province of Asia in the year 
69. Inthe year 66, when 2 Tim. was written, he evi- 
dently was not working in these regions. It is conceivable 
that after the death of Paul and Peter, men who remained 
at their posts in Palestine until the breaking out of the 
Jewish war (cf. Matt. x. 23; see vol. i. 572) now recog- 
nised that the time had come when their calling, which 
had always been wider than Israel, should now be more 
extensively exercised—just as Peter had attempted to do 
not long before (vol. ii. 158 f.). It is also conceivable that 
they should choose as the scene of their apostolic labours 
(c.e. their labours as missionaries and leaders in Churches 
that were already organised), the Churches of the province 
of Asia, which, to judge from conditions in the second 
century, were especially numerous and strong—especially 


192 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


since in these Churches the wheat and the tares grew to- 
gether luxuriantly, as is evidenced by the last letters of 
Paul. The tradition that it was after the death of James 
and shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish war that the 
apostles left Palestine and the mother Church in Jerusalem, 
also favours the dating of the settlement of apostles and 
other disciples of Jesus in Asia between 66 and 69 
(n. 23). 

Since, according to Irenzeus, John wrote his Gospel in 
opposition to Cerinthus, and since the Alogi declared 
Cerinthus to be the author of the Johannine writings 
(above, p. 177), it is significant that Irenzeus is able to 
cite witnesses who heard from Polycarp’s lips the well- 
known story of the meeting of John and Cerinthus in a 
public bath in Ephesus (n. 24). In this John of Ephesus 
one easily recognises the young Boanerges and the 
author of the Epistles. Judging from the context in 
Irenzeus, it appears that Polycarp related this anecdote in 
Rome on the occasion of his visit there at Easter 154. 
It was on this same occasion also that Polycarp, speaking 
with reference to the differences in ecclesiastical custom 
between his native Church and the Roman Church, said 
that he himself, with John and the other apostles, had 
always celebrated the Christian Passover as it was then 
celebrated in Asia, not as it was celebrated in Rome—in 
other words, that a fast had preceded the Passover, which 
was really a special yearly celebration of the Lord’s Supper 
(n. 25). No mention is as yet made in the intercourse 
between Polycarp and Anicetus in Rome in the year 154 
about another difference which led to a vigorous contest 
within the Asiatic Church between the years 165 and 170, 
and which about the year 190 created a dissension between 
the Asiatic and Roman Church that was still more danger- 
ous and which finally implicated the entire Church. Since 
in these later controversies most of the Asiatic bishops 
appealed to the authority of John of Ephesus, Philip of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 193 


Hierapolis, and also of Polycarp and all the prominent 
bishops of the past in defence of their practice in observ- 
ing the Passover on the 14th of Nisan, there can be no 
doubt that John and the other members of the apostolic 
circle who came from Palestine to Asia Minor after the 
year 66 were quartodecimans, that is to say, they cele- 
brated the Christian Passover in the manner mentioned 
above every year at the time of the Jewish Passover, on 
the 14th of Nisan, no matter on what day of the week 
it fell. 

It is more difficult to determine how much trustwor- 
thiness attaches to the other traditions concerning John. 
Some of them sound as if they were genuine history (n. 26), 
and it would be foolish to reject as pure inventions all the 
accounts concerning John peculiar to Leucius Charinus, 
who wrote in Asia from 160-170. In this work Leucius 
must have followed existing tradition much more closely 
than was done in the Acts of Peter, which was also 
probably written by him. The scene of the latter was the 
distant city of Rome, and the death of Peter had taken 
place some thirty or forty years earlier than that of John. 
Whereas in the case of John, Leucius wrote a few years 
after the death of the last of his disciples. Of special 
importance to us is his description of the death of John. 
According to ancient and genuine tradition, John of 
Ephesus died a natural death in that city in his extreme 
old age, at the beginning of the reign of Trajan (v.e. about 
100), and was buried there (n. 27). If there had been 
anything remarkable about this death except John’s 
extreme age, it is impossible to understand the silence of 
Irenzeus and the other prose witnesses concerning it. 
Nor is Leucius’ representation of it essentially different 
from this tradition (n. 28): Ona Sunday after religious 
services, John went outside the gates of the city, accom- 
panied by a few trusted disciples, had a deep grave dug, 
laid aside his outer garments which were to serve him as 

VOL. III. 13 


194 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


a bed, prayed once more, stepped down into the grave, 
greeted the brethren who were present, and gave up 
the ghost. According to this writing he does not die 
of weakness, as one might expect to be the case from 
the genuine traditions concerning the old man who had 
finally grown decrepit ; but he does actually die and rests 
in his grave in Ephesus, just as truly as Philip and his 
daughters rest in theirs at Hierapolis, and just as truly as 
do the other “ great heavenly lights of Asia, who will rise 
on the day of the Lord’s return” (Polycrates of Ephesus 
[circa 190] in Kus. v. 24. 2-5). It was not until the fourth 
century that popular superstition, taking up the suggestion 
of John xxi. 23, began to disturb his rest in the grave 
and to relate miracles about the immortal disciple and his 


grave, which grew constantly more and more fantastic 
(n. 28). 


1.(P. 174.) With regard to the external evidence for the Fourth Gospel, 
ef. E. LutHarpt, Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874; E. Aszorr, The Author- 
ship of the Fourth Gospel. External Evidences, 1880; J. Drummonp, An 
Inquiry into the Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, 1903, pp. 
72-351 ; GK, i. 17 £., 150-192, 220-262, 516-534, 675-680, 732-739, 767, 778, 
780, '784 ff., 901-915, 934, ii. 32-52, 733, 850f. 909f, 956-961, 967-973 ; 
Forsch. vi. 105, 127, 181-190, 201-208. As to the use ‘of Soln’s Gospel in 
the Gospel of Poe, cf. the writer’s work, Evang. des Petrus, 1893, S. 49 f. 

2. (P. 176.) Concerning Apostles and the disciples of Apostles in the 
province of Asia, cf. Botech,. vi. 1-224, where also the biography of Irenzeus, 
the chronology of Justin, and other relevant facts and questions are con- 
sidered. More recently, E. Scawarrz (“ Uber den Tod der Séhne Zebedai, 
ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Johannesev.” 1904, Abh. der gétt. Ges. d. Wiss. 
philol.-lst. Kl., N. F. vii. No, 5) has once again made an attempt, surpassing 
in audacity all earlier ones, to prove that the entire tradition concerning the 
long-lived Apostle John is a myth. Starting from a remark of Wellhausen 
(Ev. Marci, 90), made without much consideration of the matter, Schwartz 
infers from Mark x. 35-40=(Matt. xx. 20-23) that the apostles John and 
James died violent deaths and at the same time ; therefore, according to 
Acts xii. 2, about 44 a.p. This inference naturally does not depend, like the 
old myths of the martyrdom by oil, and of the poisoned cup related in con- 
nection with John, upon the presupposition that every prophecy of Jesus 
must have been literally fulfilled. (Cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. exvii. ff., Forsch, 
vi. 103, 147 ff.). Schwartz (S. 4) considers it self-evident, and not at all 
needful of proof, that the saying of Jesus is not authentic, but a vaticiniwm 
ex eventy attributed to Jesus, In that case certainly before the first record- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN — 195 


ing of the apparently prophetic words there must have taken place the event 
which Schwartz asserts is implied in that saying. This assertion is made 
with the naivete of the philologist, which has become proverbial, and again 
without any attempt at proof. If Mark x. 38f. might be understood to 
mean that James and John would die in the same way as Jesus (cf. John 
xiii, 36, xxi. 19), it would be necessary also to postulate that they were 
crucified, a fate which neither of them experienced. The drinking of the 
cup and the being baptized to which Jesus refers as the experience which is 
to come to Himself and His disciples, have the much more usual meaning of 
the suffering preceding the glorification, and thus understood form, as so 
often, the contrast to the reigning of Jesus, and the reigning with Him, 
which are to follow (cf. Luke xxiv. 26 ; Acts xiv. 22; Rom. viii. 17; 2 Tim. 
ii. 11f.). In itself this saying stands on a level with the demands which 
Jesus made upon all true disciples and His announcements concerning their 
future (Matt. x. 38, xvi. 24f.; John xii. 25f., xv. 20f., xvi. 2). Not until 
James was beheaded by Herod Agrippa (Acts xii. 2) could one be tempted 
to accept the supposition that this announcement to John was to be fulfilled, 
as in the case of his brother, by a martyr’s death. It was possible that Mark 
and Matthew entertained such an expectation when they wrote down that 
conversation ; for both of them wrote some twenty years after the death of 
James the son of Zebedee, and some thirty years before the death of 
John. The conclusion of Wellhausen, that this prophecy of martyrdom 
would hardly have stood in the Gospel if it had been only half fulfilled, 
would have a faint appearance of plausibility only if John had already died 
a peaceful death at the time when Mark and Matt. were written. As long 
as he lived, his death as a martyr could be expected daily. Does not the 
Gospel contain many prophesies of Jesus which had not been fulfilled when 
the evangelists wrote, and are not yet fulfilled? Entirely without any 
support in the text is the improbable assertion of Schwartz, that Mark 
x. 38 f. prophesies a s¢multaneous martyrdom of both apostles, or rather that 
on the basis of this fact the prophecy was fabricated. Here again the critic 
makes what he would prove the presupposition of his exegesis. What 
further violent efforts are necessary to save this thesis from absolute 
absurdity ? The author of Acts, “for the sake of the later tradition,” 
omitted the name of John in xii. 2; 7.¢., to favour the myth that identified 
the long-lived John of Ephesus with the son of Zebedee, he falsified the 
history handed down to him. The John who, according to Gal. ii. 9, at the 
time of the Apostolic council was, together with Peter and James, the Lord’s 
brother, one of the pillars of the mother Church, is held to be not the apostle 
of this name, who, according to Acts iii—viii., stood second to Peter, but the 
John Mark of Acts xii. 12, whom the author of Acts through his unhistorical 
statements (xii. 25, xiii. 5, 13, xv. 37f.) made a helper of Paul and Barnabas 
in their preaching, and who is not to be identified with the Mark of Col. iv. 
10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. From these criticisms of the Gospels and 
Acts it is easy to imagine how the fragmentary and in part obscure state- 
ments of the post-apostolic literature were handled. W. Sanday, The 
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 32, has correctly characterised the tone of 
this treatise ; and O. Benndorf (Forschungen im Ephesos, i. 107, published by 
the Austrian Archzological Institute, 1905) is probably not the only non- 


196 INIRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


theological historical investigator who turns away from its method and 
conclusions unsatisfied. 

3. (P. 178.) Concerning traces of the Fourth Gospel in Papias’ work, cf. 
GK, i. 902. In connection with this is what Conybeare communicates to us 
in the Guardian of July 18, 1894, from the Solutiones in IV. evv. of the 
Armenian Vardan Vardapet (XII, Cent.), according to the MS. at S. Lazzaro, 
No. 51, fol. 3: “ And as the doors were shut, He appeared to the Eleven and 
the others who were with them” (cf. Luke xxiv. 33; John xx. 19; a con- 
nection with the following is not clear), But the aloes, which they 
brought (John xix. 39), was a mixture, so to speak, half of oil, half of honey. 
It is certain, however, that aloes is a sort of incense, as we are told by the 
Geographer and by Papias, who say there are fifteen kinds of aloes in India, 
four of which are costly—namely, Nikré (? Ingré), Andratarate (? Sangra- 
taratz), Jerravor, Dzakothén. Accordingly, what Joseph and Nicodemus used 
for the burial was (? of these four costly kinds); for they were rich (John 
xix. 38f.,, cf. Matt. xxvii. 57, mAovovos). The “Geographer” is Moses of 
Khborene, in whose work, chap. xli., we can read of the four kinds of aloes, 
So this did not come from Papias. Just as little is he the originator of the 
popular misunderstanding of aloes as a mixture of oil and honey, because the 
Geographer and Papias are cited directly in opposition to this idea. There 
remains the assertion of Papias that aloes is a kind of incense. Conse- 
quently he has made John xix. 38 f. the subject of one of his eEnynoes. In 
this connection it is to be noted that the acquaintance of the Armenians 
with the work of Papias is also otherwise assured; cf. Forsch. vi. 128- 
130, 155. 

4, (P. 178.) According to Cardinal Thomasius (Opp., ed. Vezzosi, i. 344) and 
Pitra (Analecta, ii. 160), the following argument for the Gospel of John is found 
in a Latin Bible of the ninth century, in the Codex Regina 14 in the Vatican : 
“Evangelium Johannis manifestatum et datum est ecclesiis ab Johanne 
adhuc in corpore constituto, sicut Papias nomine Hierapolitanus, discipulus 
Johannis carus, in exotericis id est in extremis quingue libris retulit. De- 
scripsit vero evangelium dictante Johanne recte. Verum Marcion hereticus, 
cum ab eo fuisset improbatus eo quod contraria sentiebat, abjectus est a 
Johanne. Is vero scripta vel epistolas ad eum pertulerat a fratribus, qui in 
Ponto fuerunt.” This same text is found in bad orthography in a Codex 
Toletanus of the tenth century as the conclusion of a long prologue, which in 
the preceding sentences agrees essentially with Jerome, Vr. Ill. ix. This 
codex is printed in Wordsworth-White, N.7. Lat. i. 490; cf. also Burkitt, 
Two Lectures on the Gospels, 1901, pp. 90-94, in addition GK, i. 898 ff. Only 
as far as constitutio have we the right to refer this statement to Papias. 
Whether the author of the argumentuwm borrowed directly from Papias, or, as 
the present writer assumes, from a work in which he found Papias cited, 
may not here be discussed. There is no doubt that a Greek source lies at 
the basis, and that in exotertcis=év rois éEwrepixois xrd. is an. error of the 
copyist for év rois efnynrixois; cf. Clem. Strom. iv. 83, Baotheldns ev TO 
eixooT@ Tpite trav e€nyntixdv. Enough has been said (Forsch. vi. 127, A. 1) 
against a very superficial criticism of what Papias reported concerning the 
publishing of the Fourth Gospel by the John who was still living, and alse 
in GK, i. 900, concerning “the justness of the theological criticism,” which 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 197 


passes over this testimony of Papias in silence, and contents itself with the 
rejection of the “myths” connected with his words. The words which 
immediately follow retulit, connected by a vero, are also extant in Greek in 
the Proemium of the Catena in Jo., ed. Corderius, 1630, and in the Acta Jo. 
of Prochorus are assigned to this disciple of the Apostle (cf. the writer’s 
Acta Jo. p. 154 ff.). Also the subdictante of the Codex Toletanus in place of 
the dictante of the Regino-Vatic. points to a Greek source; it is a literal 
translation of trayopevovros "Iwdvvov. Although it is not possible to name 
an authority for this account, there is no reason for treating it as a senseless 
myth. It is almost self-evident that John, like Paul, dictated extended 
portions of Greek writings to an amanuensis; and Papias, the friend of 
Polycarp, and a companion of the same age, can just as well as he have been 
twenty-five or more years of age when the Fourth Gospel was written. The 
notice concerning Marcion, introduced by a verwm and in the Codex Tole- 
tanus written as a new section, the source of which we are less able to dis- 
cover than that of the statement concerning Papias as secretary, is chrono- 
logically unbelievable in the form in which it appears, but excepting the 
name of John does not sound senseless. Marcion came from Pontus, and 
Polycarp seems to have come to know him in Asia before he met him again 
in Rome; cf. Iren. ili. 3.4. Evidently there is a misunderstanding of the 
source like the apud Johannem, Jerome, Vir..Iil. vii.; cf. NKZ, 1898, S. 
216, A. 1. 

5. (P. 178.) Clem. Alex. in Eus. H. #. vi. 14. 7 (after the words cited, 
vol. ii. 400, n. 9, and 448, n. 9, and governed by the ¢Acyor, sc. of mpeo- 
Burepor): Tov pévror “ladvyny eoyarov ovyiddvTa, Ore Ta GopatiKa ev ois 
evayyeriors SednAwTa, mporarévta bro Tav yvapisov, wevipare Oeopopnbévra, 
MVEVPATLKOV TrolnoaL evayyéALov. 

6. (P. 178.) Can. Mur. lines 9-16 ; GK, ii. 5, 32-40 ; Acta Jo. pp. exxvi- 
exxxi. The origin of this narrative in the Acta Jo. by Leucius (GK, ii. 38) 
has become still more probable, since it has been proved that the Can. Mur. 
stands also in close relation to the Acta Petri written by the same author 
(GK, ii. 844). In GK, ii. 37f., are given also the noteworthy patristic state- 
ments in this connection (cf., further, GK, i. 898f., and the previous notes 
4,5). As to the relation of the narratives of Leucius and Clement, cf. Forsch. 
vi. 201-204. 

7. (P. 179). Iren. iii. 11. 1: “ Hanc fidem annuntians Joannes, domini 
discipulus, volens per evangelii annuntiationem auferre eum, qui a Cerintho 
inseminatus erat hominibus, errorem et multo prius ab his qui dicuntus 
Nicolaite, qui sunt vulsio eius, que falso cognominatur scientia, ut con- 
funderet eos ... sic inchoavit in ea, que est secundum evangelium doc- 
trina: ‘In principio erat verbum,’” ete. Cf. vol. i. 515, n. 4, 

8. (P. 179.) That John was the last of the evangelists to write, cf. vol. ii. 
392 f., 397-400. This supposition involves the admission that he wrote in 
old age. After a life spent only in preaching, he came at its close to make 
use of the written word (Eus. H. £. iii. 24.7). Epiph. Har. li. 12 expresses 
himself most definitely : 66 dorepoy avaykdfe 7d dyioy mvetpa Tov “ladvyny, 
maparoupevoy evayyeNoacba dv evrAdBeav Kai rarewodppoodyny, ri TH ynparéa 
adrod AAtkia pera ern evevnxovta ths éavTod Cons, pera tHY ard THs Tdrpov 
émdvodov, THY émt KAravdiov yevouévny Kaicapos kat pera ixava ern rod dvarpirar 


198 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


airoy émt (Dindorf, dd) ris ’Acias avaykdtera exbécba Td evayyédiov. Of. 
li. 2, 6 &ywos "lodvyns pe”? Wrrklav ynpadéav éemirpémerar xtrd. As to the 
determination of the date of the exile on Patmos, cf. below, n. 14; and with 
reference to the strange statements contained in Her. li. 33, cf. Forsch. v. 
35-43. Not one of the Church Fathers (Irenzus, Clement, Origen, Eusebius) 
says that John wrote his Gospel after his return from Patmos, and therefore 
after the completion of Revelation. At the same time, with the exception of 
Epiphanius, there is a whole line of witnesses for this statement: (a) A 
speech delivered at Ephesus under the name of Chrysostom (Montfaucon, 
viii. 2. 131), which Suidas (cf. sub voco, *Iwavyns [ed. Bernhardy, i. 2. 1023]) 
had looked upon and copied as a genuine work of Chrysostom ; (5) many 
Lat. prologues to John’s Gospel (N.T. Lat., ed. Wordsworth, i. 486, 490) ; 
(c) two treatises ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nova patr. Bibl. i. 1. 381 ; Aug. 
Opp., ed. Bass. iv. 382); (d) indirectly, the “‘ History of John,” which was 
preserved in the Syriac (Wright, Apocr. Acts, i. 60-64), in so far as it states 
that John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus after an exile, the place of which it 
does not give ; and (e) Prochorus in his History of the Apostle John in so far 
as it tells us that John dictated to him his Gospel in two days and six hours 
at the end of his exile, while he was still on Patmos ; however, after he had 
left behind for the churches of the island a copy which was also written by 
Prochorus, but on parchment, he brought with him to Ephesus the original, 
which was on paper (cf. the present writer’s edition of the Acta Jo. pp. 154— 
158, xliii-l), As has been more explicitly shown in the above reference, 
there must have come a confusion into the tradition, at the time when and in 
the circles where the Johannine origin of Rev.—this record of the exile on 
Patmos—was denied, and the book itself was far from being given a place in 
the N.T. Canon. Prochorus puts the Gospel in the place of Rev. which was 
written on Patmos, and only through an evident interpolation is there 
brought into his book a supplementary narrative of the Patmos origin of 
Rev. (op. cit. 184). It is an echo of the original narrative of Prochorus, when 
min. 145 (Tischend. N.T7. i. 967, cf. another min. by Matthei, Evang. Jo. 
1786, p. 356) and the Synopsis of “ Athanasius” (Athan., ed. Montf. ii. 202) 
admit that John wrote or dictated the Gospel on Patmos, but published it in 
Ephesus, and also when the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 11 and 411, idly talks 
of the tduyepov of the Johannine Gospel, which was alleged to be still 
preserved in Ephesus (Acta Jo. p. lix). But the source of the tradition that 
the Gospel of John was written in Ephesus after the return from Patmos can 
scarcely be any other than the legend of Leucius (Acta Jo. p. exxviff.). It 
does not deserve any particular credence, because Irenzus, who offers very 
definite statements in regard to the time of the writing of Matt., of Mark 
(iii. 1. 1), and of Rev. (v. 30. 3), would not have contented himself with the 
more indefinite statements as to the Fourth Gospel—e.g. that John may have 
written it later than Matt., Mark, and Luke, and that he may have written 
it during his stay at Ephesus (iii. 1. 1)—if the word of Papias or the oral 
tradition of the elders of Asia had furnished him with more exact informa- 
tion. Not only Leucius, if the present writer’s opinion in regard to him as 
above stated is correct, and the Syriac history of John, but the general 
tradition agree with Irenzus, that Ephesus is the birthplace of the Gospel 
(as to the Syrians, cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. exxvii; Forsch. i, 54f.). Also 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 199 


where only Asia is spoken of, Ephesus is meant. The fables of that Syriac 
legend and of the Acta Timothet need no further discussion (GK, i. 943, ii. 38 ; 
Acta Jo. p. cxxxviii). Yet it is to be noted that these apocryphal statements, 
in so far as they allow that John in the writing of his Gospel had at hand 
and took into account all three of the synoptic Gospels, rely upon a very old 
tradition—a tradition going back to the teachers of Clement (above, n. 5) 
and repeated by well informed people such as Eusebius (H. E. iii. 24. 7-18) 
and Theodore of Mopsuestia (Comm. in N.T., ed. Fritzsche, p. 19 f.). 

9. (P. 180.) We lack the definite testimony of Marcion and Justin that 
they ascribed the Fourth Gospel to the apostle John (cf., however, vol. ii. 
389 f.; and with regard to Justin as a witness for the apostolic title of the 
Christian writer John, below, note 12. The Valentinian Ptolemaus calls the 
evangelist now “Iadvyns 6 pa@nris rod Kvpiov (Iren. i. 8. 5), now dmdarodos 
(Zp. ad Floram in Epiph. Her, xxxiii. 3; cf. GK, i. 732f., ii. 956 ff.). The 
Valentinian Heracleon (Orig. tom. vi. 2 im Jo.) designates him at first as 
6 pa@nrns, in order to distinguish him from the Baptist, and classes him 
directly afterwards among the of améaroAa. This view of Heracleon’s state- 
ment is based on the more probable limiting of the fragment by Brooke 
(Texts and Studies, i. 4.55), which Preuschen, p. 109. 15 ff., ascribes to Origen. 
Also the Oriental Valentinians (Clem. Al. Hpit. e. Theodoto, §§ 7, 41) call the 
writer of the prologue apostle. The Alogi certify that this was the prevailing 
view up to that time (see n. 11). Irenzus regularly uses “disciple of the 
Lord” where he speaks of John as author of the Gospel (111.1. 1, xi. 1. 3, 
end), and also at other times: v. 33. 3, xi. 22. 5 (here, however, immediately 
follows non solum Joannem, sed et alios apostolos viderunt), iii. 3. 4 [at first pad. 
t. kupiov, then including him oi dréarodo] ; Hpist.ad Victorem in Kus. v. 24. 16, 
“ John the disciple of the Lord and the other apostles’—Can. Mur. line 9, 
quarts (read quartum) evangeliorum Johannis ex discipulis. We are then told 
of the consultation which John held with his condiscipula and episcopt about 
the writing of a Gospel (above, note 6), and that within this circle—evidently 
from among the condiscpuli of John—Andreas ex apostolis was specially noted. 
In other words, John too is an apostle as well as Andrew. In fact, the only 
Christian of the apostolic age, by the name of John, of whom the author of 
the fragment knows (cf. lines 27, 49, 57, 69, 71), has already, before Paul’s 
time, been a holder of the apostolic office (line 48); cf. GK, i. 154f., ii. 32 ff, 
48 f., 88f.; in general, cf. Forsch. vi. 72-78. 

10. (P. 181.) Ireneeus, Clement, Tertullian, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, 
Origen statedly cite the Gospel, the Epistles (particularly 1 John), and Rev. 
as the works of the one person, John, without finding it necessary to 
characterise him more definitely (GK, i. 202 ff.). It is only for the purpose 
of explaining the statements of one writing by means of the others or of 
specially honouring John that now and then mention is made of the identity 
of the author of these different writings. Thus Irenzus, iii. 16. 5, in con- 
nection with a citation from John xx. 31, says: propter quod et in epistola sua 
sic testificatus est nobis; following which is 1 John ii. 18ff. So Can. Mur. 
(lines 26-34) brings to the discussion of the Fourth Gospel the evidence of his 
Epistles, ¢.¢. of 1 John i. 1-4—in fact, it presents it as a writing later than 
the Gospel. Hippolytus (Contra Noet. 15) explains the name Logos, John 
i. 1, 14, from Rey, xix. 11-13, as a later statement of the same John (imoBas éy 


200 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Th dmoxadver épn). Without expressing this idea of the chronological 
sequence of the books, Orig. (tom. ii. 5 in Jo.) makes a similar statement as 
to the identity of these writers (6 airos d€ “Iadvyns ev TH admoxadvwee KTH.). 
Tert. De Fuga, 9; Scorpiace, xii., takes it for granted that Rev. was written 
before 1 John (cf. GK, i. 207). Frequently titles are given to John, appro- 
priate to his different writings ; ¢.g. Hippol. De Antichr. 36 addresses the Seer 
in Rev.: & paxdpte "lwdvvn, amoorode kal pabynra tov xupiov. Clem. Ped. ii. 
119, with reference to Rev. xxi. uses qhovy amoorddkyn. In his Quis Dives, 
xlii., he calls the exile of Patmos “Iwdvyns 6 dmdarodos; in Strom. iil. 106 he 
speaks of the writer of Rev. as 6 mpopyrns ; Orig. tom. ii. 5 in Jo. refers to 
him as 6 dwdarodos kal 6 evayyehiorns, Hdn S€ Kat Sid THs amoxadveas Kai 
mpopntns. For other examples, cf. GK, i. 206 A. 2; Forsch. vi. 210 A. 2. 

11. (P. 181.) With regard to the Alogi and the further related critical 
attempts of Caius of Rome, cf. GK, i. 220-262, ii. 967-991; PRE, i. 386. 
Before Epiphanius gave the Alogi their name they were called 7 aipeous, 
} dmoBadXovea “ladvvov tas BiBdovs (Epiph. Her. li. 3). Inasmuch as these 
and similar designations by Epiphanius occur repeatedly (ed. Dindorf, ii. 
452. 9, 19-21, 453. 6, 501. 30), and Epiphanius himself, reflecting upon the 
meaning of the expression, confesses that he does not know exactly whether 
only the Gospel and Rev. or also the Epistles are to be understood by it (raya 
d€ kal Tras émuorodds, § 34; cf. § 35), we may, therefore, be sure that this 
expression had been used by Hippolytus, whose writing against the two-and- 
thirty heresies was a source for both Epiphanius and Philaster (Her. xxx.). 
But since Hippolytus, to judge from those who depended upon him for their 
information, and from the title of his writing tzép rod xara "lwdvyny ebayyediov 
kal droxadvews, discussed only the critical arguments of the Alogi directed 
against these two principal works of John, it is likely that he did not originate 
the expression “the books of John,” but found it in his opponents’ writings. 
The Alogi themselves stated: “the books of John are not by John, but by 
Cerinthus, and are not worthy to be in the Church” (Dindorf, pp. 452. 9, 20 f.), 
and further declared that “his books do not agree with the other apostles” 
(p. 453. 6). By the latter expression they testify that the John around whose 
books the discussion gathers was an apostle. Epiphanius (p. 451. 16) observes 
quite truly that “they know that he—the alleged John—belonged to the 
number of the apostles.” They indicate the books individually with sufficient 
exactness : 7d evayyéAuov 76 cis dvopa “Iwavvov Wrevdera (p. 474. 18) ; or Aéyoues 
TO Kata “ladvynv evayyéduov adiaberov eiva (p. 475. 7), also 6 "Iwdvyns (i.e. the 
author of the Fourth Gospel, who passed himself off as John), yevderat 
(p. 479. 6); ri pe dheret 7 droxddvis Iadvvov (p. 499. 7). That, in rejecting 
the “books of John,” they could not ignore his Epistles, is evident from the 
fact that they were known in the country and in the time of the Alogi under 
the name of John (below, note 15). This is verified also in the Can. Mur. line 
26 ff. ; for in the passage after the harmony of the four Gospels is maintained 
in the face of the assertion of the Alogi that the Fourth Gospel is inconsistent 
with the other three, the positive testimony to its author in 1 John i. 1-4 is 
defended as one well warranted and by no means surprising. The Alogi 
urged, as Dionysius did later in regard to Rev. (Eus. H. #. vii. 25, 6-11), that 
this strong self-attestation was a ground of suspicion against the genuineness 
of 1 John (GK, ii. 45-52, 136). Caius in Eus. H. LH. iii. 28.2 says of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 201 


author of Rev.: KypivOos, 6 dv droxadieav os tro dmoardéXov peyddou 
yeypappéver Tepatodoyias ; Huiv as dv ayyéov aire Sedevypévas Wevddpevos KTA. 

12. (P. 182.) Just. Deal. Ixxxi.: kal émeid) (so. codd. read érs 87, al. ere 
€, al, €reira) kal rap’ nuiv avnp tis, 6 dvopa “ladvyns, cis Tov droaTéAwY TOD 
Xptorov, €v drroKxadtwee yevouervn adit@ xiua ern Toujoey ev ‘Iepovoadip Tors TH 
HeeTep@ Xpiord muorevoavras mpoepytevac, kal pera Taira riv KaboduKny Kal 
cuvedovte ava aiaviay épobvpaddy dpa mdvtav avdoracw yevnoecOar Kal 
kpiow. Cf. Rey. xx. 4-15; GK.i. 560f. 

13. (P. 182.) The Asiatic Elders of Iren. iv. 30. 4, v. 30.1, 36.1. In 
regard to the number of the antichrist, v. 30. 1, cf. Z/KW, 1885, S. 561 ff.; 
as to the older witnesses for Rey. in general, cf. GK, 1. 201-208 ((Hpist. Lugd. 
in Kus. H. H.v.1; Irenzus, Can. Mur., Hippolytus, Acta mart. Scillet., Passio 
Perpetue, Tertullian, Clement and the Church of Alexandria, Theophilus of 
Antioch, the Montanists, Melito of Sardis), 560-562 (Justin ; cf. above, note 
12), 759-761 (the Valentinians), 794f. (the Elders of Ireneeus, Sibyll., circa 
150), 950-957 (Papias and Andreas in Ay. [ed. Sylburg, p. 2, 52], and Eus, 
iii, 39. 12: Barnabas). With reference to Leucius, cf. Forsch. vi. 197-201. 

14. (P. 183.) Iren. v. 30. 3. (The Greek is rather free, rendered by Eus. 
H, H. v. 8.6. There are added here in brackets the variants of the Lat. 
version : iets ody (pevodv) ovk admoxivdvvevouey mepl Tod dvdmuatos Tod 
’Avtixpiorov amopawépevor BeBaorixds (drroKivduvevoopev ev TovT@, oddé 
BeBawrikas amohavovjeba, Ort Tovro eke TO dvopa). ei yap det (eiddres Ore et 
der) dvapavddy TH viv katp knpitrec bat rotvopua avrod, db: exeivov dy éppéOn Tod 
Kal Tv dmokdAviiy Ewpakédros. ovde yap mpd moANod xpdvov Ewpdbn (Lat. visum 
est), GAAG oyeddv em THs NeTepas yeveds, mpds TO Tédet THS Aoperiavod apyis. 
In accordance with Wettstein (V7, ii. 746), whose interpretation E. Bohmer, 
Uber Vf und Abfasswngszeit der Ap. 1855, 8. 31, has appropriated, Irenzeus is 
held to have said that John was to be seen on earth or was alive towards the 
end of Domitian’s reign. According to Iren. ii. 22. 5, ili, 3. 4, however, 
John had lived in Ephesus, not until toward the end of Domitian’s reign, but 
until the times of Trajan. There is also no proof needed to show that éwpadn 
is to be understood in any other way than as éwpakédros. According to his 
commentary on Rev., Dionysius Barsalibi, who had at hand writings of 
Hippolytus not possessed by us, this author was of the same mind as Irenzeus 
with reference to the time of the writing of Rev.; cf. J. Gwynn, Hermathena, 
vii. (1889) p. 146. The extant writings of Hippolytus, however, offer no 
confirmation of this view. He simply says (De Antichr. 36) that Rome, that 
is to say, the emperor, had brought about the banishment of John to Patmos. 
Also Orig. tom. xvi. 6 in Mt. does not dare to name a definite emperor, 
because in Rey. i. 9 none is named. Cf. Forsch. vi. 199f. In the legend of 
the young man saved by John (Clem. Quis Dives, xlii.), no emperor, indeed, 
is named, though Domitian certainly is meant ; for, in the first place, John 
is represented as a very old man; and, secondly, the return from the exile is 
closely connected with the death of the tyrant (7.e. of the emperor, who had 
banished him). This presupposes the change in affairs at the passing of the 
rule from Domitian to Nerva. Cf. Dio Cass. lxviii. 1 f.; Victorinus on Rev. 
x. 11 (cf. what immediately follows); Lact. De Mort. Persec.3; Eus. H. EL. 
iii. 20.10. The exile on Patmos and the writing of Rev. are assigned expressly 
to the time of Domitian by Victorinus in Apoc. (Migne, v. col. 333); Eus, 


202 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


H. E. iii. 18. 1 f., 20. 11, 23.1; Chron. ad a. Abrah. 2109 and 2113 (cautious 
only in regard to Rev., whose genuineness he doubted); Jerome, Vir. Ill. 
ix.; contra Jovin. i. 26; pseudo-Chrys. in the discourse (Montfaucon, viil. 
2. 131) referred to above, p. 198. Victorinus of Pettau, circa 300, remarked 
(loc. cit.) in Apoc. x. 11: “ Hoe dicit propterea quod, quando heec Joannes vidit, 
erat in insula Pathmos in metallo damnatus a Domitiano Czesare. Ibi ergo 
vidit apocalypsin. Et cum jam senior putaret, se per passionem accepturum 
receptionem, interfecto Domitiano judicia eius soluta sunt, et Joannes de 
metallo dimissus sic postea tradidit hanc eandem, quam acceperat a deo, 
apocalypsin.” The publication of Rev. after the return from Patmos is 
referred to in the statement of the renewed prophecy given in Rev. x. 11. 
Clearly Victorinus follows here an older narrative. In comparison with this, 
Epiphanius appears entirely innocent of the old tradition and lacking sound 
intelligence when (Her. li. 12, 33) he places the exile, the writing of Rev., 
and the return from Patmos in the reign of Claudius (41-54), and at the same 
time (li. 12) makes John at ninety years of age write his Gospel “after the 
return from Patmos.” To be sure, he seeks in some degree to adjust the 
contradiction between this statement of John’s age and the name of the 
emperor under whom he is said to have lived out his exile and returned, 
since he introduces, or seems to introduce, a considerable number of years of 
residence in Ephesus between the return from Patmos and the writing of the 
Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 8). The contradiction, however, is but poorly 
veiled, for no sensible man will use the words “after the return from Patmos, 
which occurred under Claudius,” to fix chronologically an event which, 
according to the statement of John’s age, and according to the old tradition, 
happened about forty years after the death of Claudius. Of still less value is 
the opinion of Can. Mur. line 48—an opinion only incidentally expressed and 
as self-evident—that John, who, in comparison with Paul, was the older 
Apostle (Gal. i. 17), also wrote the messages to the seven Churches of Asia 
before Paul wrote his letters to the seven Churches. Cf. GK, ii. 70. The 
oft-mentioned Syriac History of John, which knows nothing of Rey. and does 
not name Patmos, represents John as banished by Nero and again set free by 
him (Wright, i. 60ff.). Prochorus transfers the exile on Patmos to the time 
of Trajan or, according to another reading, of Hadrian (cf. the writer's 
Acta Jo. pp. 45, 46, 173, xxii, cxxv). To the emperor under whom John 
again received his freedom, he gives no name at all (p. 151). An indirect 
witness for the tradition supported by Irenzus is furnished by the opinion 
which repeatedly crops out, that Rev. is the last, or one of the last, writings 
of John and of the N.T. This is the view of Hippolytus, when he conceives 
of Rev. as written later than the Gospel (above, p. 197, n. 10). Furthermore, 
the employment of Rev. xxii. 18 f. to express the thought that it is sacrilege 
to add anything to the holy record of the N.T. revelation as of equal worth, 
seems to presuppose that Rev. is the last apostolic writing. Cf. Anonym. 
Contra Montan. in Eus. H. EH. v. 16.3; Iren. iv. 33. 8, v. 30. 1; Tert. Contra 
Hermog. xxii.; GK, i. 112 ff. ; 

15. (P. 184.) According to Eus. H. £. iii. 39. 16, Papias is witness for 
1 John (cf. vol. ii. 185f.,n. 1). It is very significant that the Syriac trans- 
lation of Eusebius (cf. ThLb, 1893, col. 472), already known to Ephrem, and 
consequently originating at the latest about 360, freely renders this passage ; 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 203 


“This writer makes use of Papias as witness (for portions) of the letters of 
John and of Peter.” By this there would not perhaps be meant several 
letters of John and of Peter; but the Syrian, who knew or recognised only 
the one letter of John and the one of Peter, included these both in one 
plural. The designation of Christ as air 7 ddjOeva in the preface of Papias 
(Eus. H. £. iii. 39. 3, ef. ) adroadyGeva in Orig. tom. vi. 3 in Jo.) reminds one 
very strongly of 3 John 12. Polycarp’s statement (ad Phil. vii.: mas yap és 
dv pi) dmodoyH “Incodv Xpiorov ev capi énroOéva, dvrixpiorés éorw) has a 
much clearer connection with 2 John 7 than with 1 John iv. 2f. On this 
point, as well as in regard to the similarity of Barnabas to the Epistles of 
John, cf. GK, i. 905 f. 

16. (P. 184). Concerning the method of citation mentioned on p. 184f,, 
above, cf. the examples given in GK, i. 210f. Even by such a learned man 
as Origen there is nothing more common than this carelessness. For new 
examples, cf. tom.1.23 in Jo., kara rdov Ilathov . . . ev rij rpos KopivOiovs ; just 
the same i. 31; further, ii. 7, é€v ri mpos Ococadovixeis. So also i. 33, ev rH 
*Iadvvov émiorohy (=1 John ii. 1), besides i. 22, ev rH KaOodtKH emuoTroAR 6 
"Iodvyns ; Ambros. in Ps. xxxvi. (ed. Bened. i. 777); Jerome, ad Eph. vi. 5, 
Vall. vii. 667. 

17. (P. 185.) With reference to the Johannine Epistles in the Can. Mur. 
lines 28-34, 68, cf. GK, ii. 48-52, 88-95; on the other evidences for the 
Epistles, cf. i. 209-220, 374 f., 739, '759, 905 f. 

18. (P. 186.) In the matter of Origen’s witness to 2 and 3 John as given 
in Eus. H. EH. vi. 25. 10, cf. GK, 1.211. For the testimony of Dionysius, cf. 
H. #. vii. 25.11. And for the testimony of Eusebius himself, cf. H. Z. iii. 
24. 17, 25. 3. In the latter passage, at the end of the Antilegomena, he 
mentions 7) dvopaCopéevn Sevrépa Kal rpirn ‘Iwdvvov, etre rod evayyedorod Tuyxa- 
vovoa etre kal €répov bpevipou éxeiva. Here Eusebius evidently has in mind 
John the presbyter who was discovered by him. So is he understood by a 
later writer who quotes from him (7'U, v. 2.170). But in the passage where 
Eusebius communicates his discovery of the presbyter John (iii. 39. 5-6), he 
makes use of him only in reference to Rev., just as the double tomb of John 
at Ephesus is employed by him and before him by Dionysius (Eus. vii. 
25. 16) only for the hypothesis of a second John as the author of Rev., not as 
the author of the shorter Epistles. Jerome (V%r. Ill. ix.) has nothing to say 
about the very clearly stated hypothesis of Eusebius regarding the presbyter 
John as the author of Rev. ; in fact he turns against it the material offered 
him through Eusebius and the mere hints which Kus, gives (iii. 25. 3) as to 
the boastful assertions respecting the Epistles (Vir. Ill. ix. after the dis- 
cussion of 1 John: “relique autem duo. . . . Johannis presbyteri asseruntur, 
euius et hodie alterum sepulcrum apud Ephesum ostenditur ; et nonnulli 
putant, duas memorias eiusdem Johannis evangeliste esse,” etc. Later (Vir. 
ill, xviii.) he infers as does Eus. (H. £#. iii. 39. 4-6) from the preface of 
Papias, that a presbyter John—a different person from the apostle—had been 
the teacher of Papias, and continues: “ Hoc autem dicimus propter superiorem 
opinionem (i.e. Vir. Jil. ix.), qua a plerisque rettulimus traditum, duas 
posteriores epistulas Johannis non apostoli esse, sed presbyteri.” Jerome 
does not even know how to quote himself accurately. Cf. v. Sychowski, 
Mieron. als Literarhist. 8. 91, 107. 


204 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


19. (P. 187.) James stands before his brother John three times in Matt., 
nine times in Mark, three times in Luke. John precedes James only in Luke 
viii. 51, ix. 28; Actsi.13. The use of of (vioi or rod) ZeBedaiov without the 
proper name is found only in Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56; John xxi. 2; 
beside the names of the sons, Matt. iv. 21, x. 2; Mark i. 19, iii. 17, x. 35; 
Luke v.10. In regard to John as the youngest of all the apostles, cf. the 
writer’s Acta Jo. p. cxxxivf.; in addition to this, cf. Theod. Mops. Comm. on 
Jo. (Syriac ed. Chabot, p. 3. 16). 

20. (P. 187.) Cf. the discussion regarding the brothers and the cousins of 
Jesus, Forsch. vi. 225-363, especially 338-341. 

21. (P. 188.) Mark x. 35 represents the sons of Zebedee as themselves 
presenting the request. At the same time the statement (Matt. xx. 20) that 
their mother came before Jesus with them and was herself the spokesman 
sounds most credible. Mark and still more Luke, who gives no account of 
this incident, leads the reader, who knows the story through the sequence of 
the narratives in Mark ix. 33-40, Luke ix. 46-55, to suppose that the brothers 
were very actively concerned in the dispute for position. According to Luke 
xxii, 24-34, cf. John xiii. 4-17, the dispute was renewed at the time of the 
Last Supper, and Peter also appears to have had a part in it. 

22. (P. 191.) Ivren. iii. 3. 4. In regard to this passage and the entire 
testimony of Irenzeus as to the relation of Polycarp to John, cf. Forsch. iv. 
259 f., vi. 72-78, 96-109. 

23. (P. 192.) Hus. H. #. iii. 5. 2f.; Demonstr. ev. vi. 18.14; Epiph. De 
Mens. xv.; Her. xxix. 7, xxx. 2 (cf. vol. ii. 588f., n. 3), cf. Theod. Mops., 
ed. Swete, i. 115 f. 

24. (P. 192.) Iren. iii. 3. 4 (as given in Greek in Eus. iv. 14. 6): kat eiciy 
ot dxnkodres avrov (2.e. of Polycarp), ére Iadvvns, 6 Tov kupiov pabntns, ev TH 
*Edéom ropevbels hovoacOa Kal dav €ow KypivOov, éfnraTo Tod Badavetov pi} 
Aovedpevos, GAN erevrav : “ hiyopev, pu) Kal TO Badaveioy cupmrécn Evdov Gyros 
KnpivOov tov ris ddnOeias é€xOpov.” No suspicion can be attached to this 
narrative of Polycarp’s, traced back so definitely to ear-witnesses, who were 
still living in the time of Irenzus, through the very similar narratives of 
Epiph. Her. xxx. 24, in which Ebion takes the place of Cerinthus (GK, ii. 
757). If, in all probability, the latter account goes back to Leucius, who 
wrote earlier than Irenzus, then it is a significant confirmation of the 
historicity of Polycarp’s narrative. Leucius, who was at least connected with 
the school of Valentinus (vol. ii. 73, n. 7), and therefore not so greatly out of 
sympathy with the teaching of Cerinthus, although he was anti-Judaistic, has 
substituted the name of Ebion for Cerinthus, which he has probably retained 
beside it as “‘ Merinthus” ; ef. the writer’s Acta Jo. p. cxxxvili. The anecdote 
is of itself not possible of invention. What inventor of legends would re- 
present an apostle as frequenting a public bathing-place. In Epiph. (op. cit.) 
one can read how offensive this story from a secular source was to the pious 
taste. But it could not even have been invented fifty or sixty years after the 
death of John, if the fact was not established that Cerinthus in the lifetime 
of John had been prominent in Ephesus as a heretic. 

25. (P. 192.) Polycarp’s position in the question of the Passover we know 
through Iren. Hp. ad Vict. in Kus, H. HE. v. 24. 16 (Forsch. iv. 283-303, where 
the present writer believes he has contradicted old errors, and has made clear 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 205 


for the first time the real facts in the case) ; cf., further, Polyc. Ep. ad Vict. in 
Eus. H. £. v. 24. 1-8. 

26. (P. 193.) Of the narratives regarding John which cannot be traced 
nearer to their sources, the one that claims special confidence is in Clement 
(Quis Div. xlii.), beginning with the words, dkovoov pdOov, od piOov adda dvra 
Adyov rept lwdvyou rod droarddov wapadeSopévoy Kal pynun medvdraypévoy, not 
poorly rendered by Herder in the legend, “ Der gerettete Jiingling,” cf. Acta 
Jo. p. exl ff. ; Forsch. vi. 16-18, 199. Further seems genuine what Jerome 
on Gal. vi. 10 (Vall. vii. 528f., at all events according to one of the Greeks 
named on p. 370, probably according to Origin) related of the decrepit John, 
who, brought by his disciples into the assembly, could utter nothing but the 
ever repeated word Filioli, diligite alterutrwm. So the story of John playing 
with the partridge, though originating with Leucius, has nothing made up 
about it (Acta Jo. pp. exxxvi, 190), The resurrection of a dead man at 
Ephesus through the agency of John, which is testified to by Apollonius (in 
Eus. v. 18. 14) in the year 197, is perhaps identical with the interesting 
account Acta Jo. pp. 188. 33-190. 2, and also p. cxxxvi. 

27. (P. 193.) The expression concerning the death of John at Ephesus, 
mapépewve avrois péxpt Tv Tpaiavod xpdver, twice used by Irenzeus (ii. 22. 5, iii. 
3. 4), particularly in comparison with the similar assertion in regard to Poly- 
carp (also in iii. 3. 4), allows of no other conception than that of a natural 
death. When at this same time Polycrates (Eus. iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3) writes, 
ért 5€ kat "lwdvvns 6 emi rd ornOos Tod Kupiov dvarecar, ds eyevnOn icpedrs rd 
méradov meopexas kal paptus kal diddoKados, otros ev "Edéo@ Kekoiunra, he 
characterises John, in the first place, according to John xiii. 25, as the 
Evangelist ; secondly, as the high priest (as Epiph. Hwr. xxix. 4, lxxviii. 14, 
characterises the Lord’s brother James, an idea which probably arose in con- 
nection with the priestly origin of Mary and Salome ; ef. above, p. 87) ; therdly, 
as a witness and teacher, both of which he was in all the writings that bear 
his name, as well as in his preaching (John i. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24; 1 John 
i. 1-4,iv.14; Rev. i. 2; cf. Forsch. vi. 208-214). That Polycrates could have 
thought of pdprvs in the sense of martyr, as he directly afterwards uses it of 
Polycarp and Thraseas, is improbable also, because, as in the case of these two, 
he would have placed the paprus as designating the manner of John’s death 
directly after the other titles. Otherwise he must have seen a martyrdom 
perhaps in the banishment to Patmos, Rev. i. 9. That prophecy regarding 
the sons of Zebedee, which is given in Mark x. 38f., Matt. xx. 22f., and 
which was fulfilled literally only in the case of James, gave early oppor- 
tunity for explanatory interpretations, providing a Lat. fragment under Poly- 
carp’s name were genuine (Patr. Ap. ii. 171, with the necessary emendation 
Acta Jo. p. cxix). At all events, such interpretations were forthcoming from 
Origen and many later than he. On the other hand, this prophecy also gave 
rise to the invention of the legend regarding the immersion of John in boil- 
ing oil and his drinking a cup of poison (Acta Jo. pp. exvi-cxxii), All this, 
and especially the silence of Irenzeus, who had in his possession the work of 
Papias, would be incomprehensible or rather impossible, if, as has been often 
maintained, Papias had stated that the apostle John had been killed by the 
Jews. In one passage of the Chronicle of Georgios Hamartolos, about 860, 
where, according to all other manuscripts, he testifies to the peaceful death of 


\ 


% 


206 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW ‘TESTAMENT 


John (ev eipnyy averatcaro), a single MS. has the direct contrary, paprupiov 
carnéiwra, and adds to this further that Papias says of John, in the second 
book of his work, éru id “Iovdatwv dvypéOn, by which the prophecy of Mark 
x. 39 was fulfilled in regard to him as well as in regard to his brother James 
(Georg. Hamart., ed. Muralt, p. 336, pref. xvii.f.; Nolte, ThQSc, 1862, S. 
466f.). De Boor, TU, v. 2. 170, has published from a collection of extracts, 
essentially the same thing in this form: Iamias ev rd devrépm Adyw Eyer Ore 
"lodvyns 6 Oeodrdyos Kai “IdkwBos 6 ddeApds avrov td “lovdalwy dyypéOnoar. 
That this MS. of Georgios is interpolated at this place, is just as certain as 
that in the second book of Papias there must have been something which 
served as a basis for the two extracts (cf. De Boor, 177 ff.). We do not possess 
the text. Just after this place the interpolator of Georgios has reproduced a 
passage from Orig. tom. xvi. 6 im Mt. most inexactly and with absolute in- 
correctness. The second excerptor shows by 6 deoAdyos that he is not quoting 
the words of Papias. That which is common to both, namely, “Iwdvyns bd 
"Iovdaiwv dvnpé6n, will remain as the expression of Papias. But who is the 
John of whom Papias speaks? Certainly not his teacher, the presbyter John 
of Ephesus, or an apostle John, to be distinguished from him, who possibly 
might have been a martyr in Palestine and never have come to Ephesus. 
For, in the first place, Papias knew only one John of the apostolic generation 
(vol. ii. 485 f.) ; and, secondly, in both of these cases the silence of Irenzeus and 
all the testimony of those witnesses, among whom Irenzus is merely the 
clearest, would be incomprehensible. The question must, then, deal with 
another John, who can be no other than the Baptist : Commodianus, Apol. 
222 (Judei), Johannem decollant, jugulant Zachariam ad wras: Pseudo-Cypr. 
Adv. Jud. 2, Johannem interimebant Christum demonstrantem. Still more 
mistakenly and yet just as certainly does Theop. (Lat. ed.) In Huv. (Forsch. 
ii. 56, Text and Anm.) say the same thing in regard to the Baptist. Whoever 
thinks it improbable that Byzantine excerptors have transferred to the 
Apostle an expression of Papias concerning the Baptist, let him read the 
communication of Conybeare in the Guardzan of July 18, 1894. The above 
mentioned Vardapet (above, p. 196, n. 3) calls Polycarp a “disciple of the 
Baptist,” referring to the much older Ananias Sharkuni, who had rightly 
called him a “disciple of the evangelist John.” Cf., besides, Acta Jo. cxviii, 
and more in detail Forsch. vi. 147-151. 

28. (P. 193.) The last chapter of Leucius’ Acts of John is preserved for us 
in what the Syriac version and the Armenian version, which is attributed to 
the fifth century, have in common with the Greek texts, and is confirmed not 
only by the silence of those who possessed the book, but incidentally also by 
their positive statements, e.g. Epiph. Her. lxxix. 5, cf. Acta Jo. pp. xeiv—exii, 
238-250, also p. 235; Acta Ap. Apocr., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part i, 215. 
Augustine is the oldest witness for the superstition that John still breathes in 
his grave and thereby lifts the surface of the earth ; cf. the writer’s Acta Jo. 
pp. 205, xcviii, eviii. In the same work, cf. pp. cliv-clxxii in regard to the 
various places where people later believed him to be buried, and the buildings 
connected with them, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 207 


§ 65. THE TESTIMONY OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO 
ITS AUTHOR. 


John, whom we may venture to call the author of the 
Johannine writings, did not, like Matthew and Mark, pre- 
fix a title to his Gospel. Nor did he, like Luke, write a 
preface, or a dedication taking the place of a preface, in 
which the author, addressing the first reader or readers of 
his book, discussed the presuppositions and purpose of his 
literary work ; since what is called the prologue to John 
(John i. 1-18) is an introduction of an entirely different 
sort. But in two later passages of his book (xix. 35, xx. 
31), addressing his readers, John does speak concerning 
the reasons why he wrote, and in the first of these of his 
own, the narrator’s, relation to the facts which he recorded. 
The occurrence of a “ you” addressed to the readers in the 
midst of a narrative in which there is nothing else to 
indicate that it is of the nature of a communication, and to . 
which no dedication is prefixed giving it a certain resem- 
blance to a letter, is something unheard of in literature 
(n.1). It is the language of the preacher addressing his 
congregation. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact 
that in both passages the purpose of the written narrative 
is declared to be the upbuilding of the religious life of the 
readers. The narrative is a means used for the accom- 
plishment of the preacher’s end. It is, therefore, a sermon 
addressed to a definite group of hearers, or rather, since it 
isin written form, a definite group of readers. From this it 
follows at once that the readers for whom John wrote his 
book were Christians, with whom he was acquainted and 
who knew him. That they belonged to the Church is in 
no way rendered doubtful by the fact that Christian faith 
is declared to be the goal to which the readers are to be led 
by the testimony of John. For it is a peculiarity of the 
Fourth Gospel frequently to speak of a relative unbelief, 
and of a beginning of belief in those who in a general sense 


208 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


have already become and are believers (n. 2). Further- 
more, the language of the Gospel, especially xx. 31, shows 
very clearly that the reference is not to a first beginning 
of belief, but to the strengthening of already existing faith, 
and. to the increase of the blessedness that accompanies liv- 
ing faith. The entire character of the book is against the 
assumption that it is intended to be a written sermon for 
the conversion of persons not yet believers. To address as 
“you” the indefinite and unknown “ public” into whose 
hands the book might fall, especially a Gentile or Jewish 
public of this character, would show a lack of good taste 
quite unparalleled. With the help of the tradition (above, 
pp. 179 f., 194 f.) we may define the first impression of 
xix. 85, xx. 31 as follows: In imagination John sees the 
Church of Ephesus, or all the Christians of Asia, gathered 
about him, and in important passages of his book he 
addresses them directly. Under ordinary circumstances 
in written, as in oral, discourse the “you” which is twice 
used would correspond to an “1” representing the speaker. 
This is not only wanting in xix. 35, xx. 31, but throughout 
the entire book, and the question arises what substitute for 
it was chosen by the author who was known to the readers. 

Omitting for the present the consideration of the 
supplement (chap. xxi. § 66), we observe that, while “I” 
does not occur in the prologue, ‘‘ we,” which includes the 
author, is used three times (i. 14, 16). When John com- 
pares the existence of the Logos, who became flesh upon 
earth, with the visible appearance of the glory of Yahweh 
during the flight out of Heypt and its descent upon and into 
the tabernacle, he immediately represents himself as one of 
the group of men among whom the Logos dwelt in the flesh 
as inatent. Consequently he was also one of the men who 
beheld the glory of the Logos shining through the veil of 
the flesh when He dwelt among men ; and, finally, he was 
one of those, all of whom had received from the fulness 
which this one personality held within itself grace upon 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 209 


grace (n. 3). The use of the aorist three times in these 
statements, the subject of the last verb and the object of 
the first, make the writer’s meaning perfectly clear. John 
does not regard himself as simply one of the contemporaries 
and fellow-countrymen of Jesus who saw Him occasionally 
and heard Him speak, but reckons himself, just as clearly 
as is done in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14, among “the eye- 
witnesses from the beginning ””—the disciples who believed 
on Jesus and were in constant fellowship with Him ; since 
Jesus had revealed His glory, not to those who had seen 
some of His wonderful deeds, or who had only heard of 
Hum. (31, 23 ff., vi. 2, 14, 26, 36, xu. 37 ff, xv. 24), but to 
the disciples who believed on Him (ii. 11; cf. i. 51, xi. 40). 
To this circle the author belonged. 

When first mentioned, the two disciples of John, who 
were the first to attach themselves to Jesus shortly after 
His baptism (1. 35-39), appear without names. It is not 
until later, and then in a very circumstantial way,—when 
something is to be narrated about Peter,—that we learn 
that one of these was Andrew, Peter’s brother (ver. 40 f.). 
The thoughtful reader asks, “ Who is the other of these 
first two disciples of Jesus?” One would naturally sup- 
pose that this particular evangelist, who is the only one to 
relate how a group of disciples was first gathered about 
Jesus, and who gives details about more disciples than do 
the other evangelists (n. 4), must have regarded these first 
two disciples as of equal importance. Our wonder is 
increased when we read ver. 41. According to the correct 
reading, which is to be accepted more because of its 
originality than because of strong external testimony, it is 
stated with marked emphasis that Andrew, the jirst of the 
two disciples, finds hes own brother, which implies that 
after Andrew the other of the two disciples, whose name is 
not mentioned, also finds his brother, whose name is like- 
wise unmentioned (n. 5). To everyone who can read 
Greek it is perfectly clear between the lines that, in 

VOL. II. 14 


210 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


addition to the two brothers Andrew and Peter, there must 
have been two other brothers who left John and became 
disciples of Jesus. The more peculiar this suppression of 
the names of the second pair of brothers and the mere 
suggestion of an event which clearly was of importance to 
the author seem, the more imperative is it that we ask the 
reason for the peculiarity. In all four lists of the apostles 
the two brothers whom John mentions, Andrew and Peter, 
are associated with two other brothers, John and James, 
and the names of these four always stand at the head of 
the lists. Itis more than conjecture to suppose that the 
two brothers associated with Peter and Andrew in John’s 
account of the call of the disciples are the same as those 
who in the lists of the apostles without exception sustain 
the same relation to them. This enables us also to explain 
why these four names always come first. They were the 
first of the apostles who became disciples of Jesus. This 
conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in all four of the 
lists Philip occupies the fifth place, as in John, and 
Nathanael, who is sixth in John’s account—if he be identical 
with Bartholomew—occupies this same position in the lists 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, being seventh only in Acts i. 
13 (n. 6). 

For the present we may conclude our proof of the 
identity of the unnamed brothers in John i. 35-41 with 
James and John by calling attention to the further fact 
that these two apostles, who, according to the testimony of 
all the other tradition, together with Peter stood closest to 
Jesus, and who are distinguished by the place given them in 
the lists of the apostles and by the réle which they played 
in Acts (above, p. 187 f.), are never mentioned by name in 
the Fourth Gospel. Nor is their father, Zebedee, men- 
tioned except in the supplementary chapter xxi. (ver. 2); 
and, as we have already seen (above, p. 187), even their 
mother, Salome, is designated as the sister of Jesus’ mother 
without mention of her name. How are we to explain the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 211 


fact that no mention is made of the names of this family, all 
the members of which were so close to Jesus, and the fact 
that in this Gospel, in which the personal characteristics 
of the members of the apostolic circle are more strongly 
brought out than in any other, there is complete silence 
concerning two apostles of the first rank? It is even less 
possible to think of the omission of the names of the two 
brothers in John 1. 35-41 without connecting this fact 
with the entire silence of the Gospel concerning James and 
John, than it is to think of the unnamed brothers among 
the first four disciples without connecting this fact with 
the occurrence of the names of James and John among the 
first four apostles in all the lists. Unless we are willing 
to assume a multitude of peculiar accidents and to admit 
that the facts to which attention has been called are a 
meaningless puzzle, we must admit, as the result of a 
purely exegetical study, that one of the two disciples 
whose name is not mentioned in i. 35 ff. was either James 
or John, and that the brother whose name is likewise 
unmentioned, whom one of these found and brought to 
Jesus as Andrew did Peter, was either John or James. 
But the only credible reason for the absence of the 
names of James and John and of the entire family in the 
Fourth Gospel, is the aversion of the author of this book 
to introducing himself by the use of “I,” or by the use of 
his name, into the history, which to him and his readers: 
was sacred—an aversion which is manifested in different 
ways by the other evangelists and the author of Acts_ 
(n. 7). It is the author of the book who introduces him- 
self and his brother without mention of their names. The 
author is, or means to represent himself as being, either the 
unnamed companion of Andrew in i. 35-89, or the brother 
of this unnamed person not expressly mentioned, of the 
finding of whom we read between the lines in ver. 41. 
Which of these two it was is determined by the character 
of the narrative in vv. 35-39. While there is no account 


212 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the finding of the brother by the companion of Andrew, 
in vy. 85-39, it is either the account of something the 
author experienced, or a skilful imitation of such an ex- 
perience (n. 8). The unnamed person is, therefore, the 
narrator, who with Andrew followed Jesus at the sug- 
gestion of his former teacher, and who after hours of 
conversation with Jesus became convinced that He was 
the Messiah, and who, like Andrew, but somewhat later, 
brought his own brother to the newly-found teacher. It 
is easier still to determine whether the narrator was John 
or James. Not only does tradition unanimously make 
John the author, but it is impossible that James, who was 
put to death in the year 44 (Acts xii. 2), should have been 
the author of this Gospel, which was certainly written 
much later. Nor is it conceivable that a writer of a later 
time should have identified himself with this James who 
died at such an early date, and who was so little prominent 
after the death of Jesus, and that this identification should 
have been entirely without result. The author was, there- 
fore, John, the son of Zebedee. 

Since the six men, whose first contact with Jesus is 
narrated in i. 35-51, accompanied Him on His journey 
to Galilee (i. 43), and are represented as being among the 
witnesses of His wonderful deeds (1. 50 f.), it is self-evident 
that wherever in the further course of the Gospel the 
disciples of Jesus are mentioned (ii. 2, 11, 12, 17, 22, iii. 
22, iv. 2, 8, 27-38) these disciples are meant, or at least 
included. This name is also applied to all those who, 
through their faith in Jesus and at least a temporary 
attachment to Him, are distinguished from the multitudes 
who come and go (iv. 1, vi. 60-66, vil. 3, vill. 31, ix. 27 f,, 
xix. 38). But where “the disciples” are spoken of as the 
travelling companions of Jesus, or His regular followers, 
or His companions at table, it is made clear in various 
ways that those are meant whom Jesus had appointed at 
the beginning to share His work, whom He had attached 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 213 


to Himself, and twelve of whom He had chosen to be 
apostles at a time not definitely indicated by John (n. 9). 
Where individuals belonging to this circle are mentioned 
by name they are always those who, from the other sources 
we know, belonged to the circle of the Twelve, namely, 
Andrew (vi. 8, xii. 22), Peter (vi. 8, 68, xiii. 6-9, 24, 
36-38, xviii. 10, 11, 15-18, 25-27, xx. 2-7), Philip (vi. 
5-7, xii. 22, xiv. 8), Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24-29), 
Judas the traitor (vi. 71, xii. 4, xii. 2, 11-26-80, xviii. 
2-9), and the other Judas (xiv. 22). When Philip and 
Peter reappear in the narrative, it is assumed that they 
are already known from chap. 1. On the other hand, 
Thomas and Judas are introduced as if heretofore unknown. 
While Andrew is introduced in vi. 8 as a new figure, it is 
done in such a way that the reader recalls i. 40, just as he 
recalls i. 44 in connection with the third mention of Philip 
in xi. 21. Attention is never again called to 1. 35-39, 41, 
and the two unnamed brothers. It is not until xii. 23-25 
that an unnamed person belonging to the inner circle of 
the disciples is once more brought into prominence, and 
then again in xix. 26-35 and xx. 2-10, with unmistakable 
reference to xiii. 23. One of the disciples reclining with 
Jesus at the table occupied the place at His right, which 
is explained by the remark that Jesus had a special fondness 
for him. The confidence which was a natural result of this 
fondness is evidenced by the fact that the disciple arose 
from his place, which was lower down and removed some- 
what from the Lord, and, leaning on Jesus’ breast, quietly 
whispered to Him the question about the identity of the 
traitor. Who is this disciple for whom Jesus showed a 
special love, which was distinguished from His love to all 
men, and especially to His disciples (xiii. 1, xv. 9, 13), not 
so much by its greatness or its strength as by His special 
fondness for the particular personality of this disciple 
(n. 10)? The answer of the early Church always was, 
“This unnamed disciple is the evangelist who is identical 


214 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with the apostle John” (n. 11). And it is difficult to 
understand how, if we accept the identity of the evangelist 
with the disciple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, the identity 
of the same with the apostle John can be denied. Accord- 
ing to Matt. xxvi. 20; Mark xiv, 17, 20; Luke xxu. 14, 
30, no one except the twelve apostles took part in Jesus’ 
last meal, and John itself makes it clear that it was the 
apostles whom Jesus had chosen for a special service, and 
particularly for the service of preaching, who sat with Him 
on the last evening at table, and that the only person 
among those at the table not really belonging to the circle 
was the apostle Judas, not some admirer of Jesus who 
belonged to the larger group of His disciples (n. 9). In 
view of the entire agreement of the evangelists as to this 
point, every statement to the effect that others were 
present at the table is to be regarded as a priori false, and 
every attempt to derive from the Fourth Gospel itself a 
conception in contradiction to the more explicit testimony 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is to be regarded as making 
mockery of the text (n. 12). 

The fact that the disciple who leaned on Jesus’ breast, 
like the companion of Andrew ini. 35 ff., is unnamed, is to 
be explained, as it is in i. 35 ff., by the fact that the author 
is speaking of himself; and what in the latter instance was 
inferred from the apparent identity of the two pairs of 
brothers who were the first disciples, with the two pairs of 
brothers who are mentioned first in all the lists of the 
apostles, namely, that the narrator was, like his brother, 
an apostle, follows directly from the situation in xiii.—xvii. 
In i. 35 ff. the only question was as to whether John or 
James was the narrator, which, in view of the time prior 
to which the Fourth Gospel could not have been written 
and the unanimous tradition, was decided in favour of 
John; and both these arguments apply in case of the 
unnamed narrator in xiii. 23ff The fact is also to be 
taken into consideration, that in the nature of the case the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 215 


apostle upon whom Jesus bestowed His special friendship 
must have been one of the three most intimate disciples of 
Jesus (above, p. 187). If for reasons already mentioned 
James is out of the question, and if Peter is excluded 
because in Jol xiii. 24 and frequently also in other 
passages he is associated with the unnamed disciple, there 
remains only the apostle John. This conclusion that the 
unnamed apostle in xii. 23 ff. was John is confirmed by 
the fact that in John xii. 23 ff., xx. 2-10, and, as will be 
shown, in xxi. 1-7, 20-25 also—possibly also in xviii. 
15-18—this unnamed disciple is associated with Peter, 
just as was the apostle John, according to other tradition 
(Luke xxi. 8; Acts i. 1ff., iv. 13 ff, vill. 14 ff; ef. Gal. 
ii. 9), even before the death of James, the son of Zebedee, 
who was the third among the intimate apostles of Jesus. 
In xix. 26, xx. 2, the unmistakable reference to xili. 23 
makes it certain that the apostle John was among the 
disciples who stood near the cross and hastened to the 
grave ; but in xviii. 15, according to the reading supported 
by the strongest evidence (dAdAcs pabnry}s, without the 
article), a disciple is introduced in association with Peter, 
who for the time being is left unidentified. While formally 
it is possible to assume that here some person other than 
the apostle John is meant, the analogy of xiii. 23, where 
in the same manner, without regard to his earlier reference 
to himself in i. 35 ff., the apostle is introduced as merely 
one of the disciples, and, afterwards characterised by his 
special relation to Jesus, shows that this assumption, while 
possible, is not necessary. Certainly the unnamed person 
in xviii. 15 was one of the apostles, since, together with 
Peter, he follows Jesus from the place where Jesus was 
taken prisoner to the palace of the high priest. But in 
Gethsemane, as at the Last Supper, only apostles were 
present; and of these Peter, John, and James were 
especially near to Jesus. When it is further borne in 
mind that the names of personages so little prominent in 


216 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the narrative as Malchus (xviii. 10), Mary the wife of 
Clopas (xix. 25), and Joseph of Arimathea (xix. 38) are 
mentioned by name in John, and that nowhere save in the 
passages in which we have discovered the author himself 
is an apostle introduced as speaking or acting without 
being mentioned by name, there can be no doubt that the 
anonymity of the other disciple and apostle (xviii. 15) is 
to be judged by the analogy of similar passages already 
discussed. The other disciple is one of the two apostles 
whom the author, from principle and without exception, 
introduces only anonymously, 2.e. either John or James. 
But the reasons which in all the other cases were decisive 
for John and against James are not applicable here. There 
is nothing in the experience related in xvill. 15-16 to 
indicate that it was that of the author. The apostle John 
could have learned this simple incident from his brother 
James, or from Peter. Nor have we, as in the case of 
xiii. 23 (xix. 26, xx. 2), a very ancient tradition—found 
as early as John xxi. 24—that the unnamed person in 
Xvill, 15 is identical with the author. Consequently the 
unnamed person in xviii. 15 could have been some person 
other than the author, namely, the apostle James, the son 
of Zebedee; and if anyone prefers this assumption, and 
thinks that it explains the noticeable absence in xviii. 15 
of a reference to xiii. 23, which is taken up again in xix. 26, 
xx. 2, there is no decided objection to this view. Not 
even the consideration that the apostle, who alone had the 
courage to press his way up to the cross, namely, the 
evangelist and apostle John, was probably the same 
disciple who ventured into the palace of the high priest, . 
is decisive (n. 13). But hesitancy in this one instance 
about deciding which of the two sons of Zebedee is meant 
does not affect in any way the definiteness of the conclusion 
based on the other passages, namely, that the author is, 
or intends to represent himself as, the apostle John. 

If the apostle John was not the author, then the author 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 217 


certainly expresses in the strongest possible way his inten- 
tion of being taken for John, particularly in the one 
passage (xix. 35) in the narrative where he imagines 
himself among his readers, and addresses them. The 
account of Jesus’ death on the cross is concluded by the 
mention of two incidents connected with it—the fact that 
the soldiers, when they say that Jesus was already dead, 
did not, as in the case of those crucified with Him, break 
His legs; and that one of them pierced Jesus’ side with a 
spear, and that blood and water flowed from the wound. 
That the last-mentioned fact, important as it may be in 
itself, is incidental in this connection, is proved by the 
fact that the two quotations, designed to prove that these 
things took place in fulfilment of prophetic utterances in 
Scripture (ver. 36f.), refer only to the fact that the legs 
were not broken, and that Jesus was pierced with a spear, 
but not at all to the issue of blood and of water from His 
side. Nevertheless, the remark which the author inserts - 
between the narrative and the reference to the prophecies 
which it fulfilled, cal 6 éwpaxas peuaptipyKxev xTr., refers to 
the entire contents of vv. 32-34. Since it is not stated 
that some eye-witness of the event narrated it to others, 
but as the subject is “he, who saw it,” ae. the specific 
eye-witness who has been already mentioned and is known, 
and since, for grammatical reasons, and because of the 
contents, the women in ver. 25, and especially the soldiers 
in ver. 32, are excluded, the only person that can be 
referred to is the one man who remained loyal to Jesus, 
who, according to ver. 26f., stood near the cross during 
the last moments of Jesus’ life,—the disciple whom Jesus 
particularly loved, the apostle who in xiii. 23 and in 
xix. 26 is characterised in the same way. The readers 
here addressed would have recognised the well-known 
author (above, p. 207) as they did in i. 35 ff, xiii. 23 f. 
(xviii. 15 f.); they certainly did not ascertain for the first 
time in xix, 35 who the author was, On the other hand, 


218 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the modern reader, farther removed from the author, 
learns for the first time clearly in xix. 35 what can be 
ascertained from the earlier passages only by inference, 
namely, that the narrator of the story of the cross and the 
author of the Gospel are identical with the apostle whom 
Jesus especially loved. For the peuaprtipnxev relates to the 
testimony given in the written account that precedes. It 
is possible that the eye-witness testified to these things 
orally more than once before he embodied his testimony 
in a narrative, and that in this passage his thought em- 
braces both the oral and written testimony. But it is 
impossible to interpret the words as referring to any oral 
testimony whatsoever without regard to whom it was 
addressed. The perfect does not exclude the possibility 
of its reference, primarily or even exclusively, to the 
written testimony that immediately precedes (cf. i, 34, 
iv. 18, vi. 65, xiv. 29, xv. 15, xx. 31); while the presents 
which follow (éori, déyer), and the statement that this 
testimony and word in question are designed to influence 
the readers addressed to believe (cf. xx. 31), prove that 
the reference is to the testimony which has just been laid 
before the readers of the book in the preceding account. 
As has been already remarked, the author did not write 
xix. 85 with the purpose in view which it may incidentally 
serve in our case, namely, to enable his readers here toward 
the end of the book to discover his identity—something 
which could have been done much earlier and much more 
simply. He wrote it rather to make his readers feel that 
it was an eye-witness who reported the facts which imme- 
diately preceded. 

This conclusion is confirmed by the second and third 
statements which follow, each of which is connected with 
what precedes by «ai. According to the regular usage of 
adnOwes in John—the retaining of which here is all the 
more reasonable because ddnOyjs is used in the same con- 
text—the second clause means that the testimony of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 219 


narrator is worthy of the name; it is testimony in the 
full sense of the word. In the broad sense any statement 
which corresponds to the facts may be called a testimony, 
but the full and original sense of the word is preserved 
only when one testifies to what he has seen, heard, and 
in general experienced (n. 14). The third clause goes 
farther, and says that the witness here testifying speaks 
the truth, which would by no means necessarily follow 
from his having been present when the events in question 
took place, and that he records this truthful account only 
in order that the readers, like the author, may attain to 
faith. This is not stated directly with the words, «at 
GrnOH réyee xTr., but is introduced by the very much 
disputed phrase xaxeivos oidev 67s ad. Even if the inter- 
pretation of the preceding clauses just given be incorrect, 
it is nonsensical to claim that here in one breath the 
evangelist claims that his account is that of an eye- 
witness, and at the same time distinguishes himself, the 
writer, from the eye-witness who is absent and no longer 
living (n. 15). At all events, it is a fact that the author, 
instead of using an “I” or a “we,” that would include 
himself (i. 14; 1 John i. 1 ff; Acts xvi 10 ff.),—which 
formally would be in better keeping with the “ you” of 
the address,—follows the same course as in the preceding 
narrative, and speaks of himself in the third person (Aéye, 
n. 7). Theoretically this makes it possible for him to use 
éxeivos of himself, the writer, or of “the writer of these 
things,” as he might use odros, or avrds, or 6 Towdros, 
which in a discourse where the speaker uses the first 
person of himself would imply strong emphasis upon the 
“JT” (ix. 87, cf. iv. 26; 2 Cor. xii. 3). But if the subject 
of ofda is the same as the subject of peuapripney and réyeu, 
there is no reason why it should be emphasised by the 
use of a demonstrative, and thereby be given a certain 
contrastive force. The idea, however, that the author 
himself was conscious of the entire truth of his account, | 


220 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


or of his statement about being an eye-witness, would not 
be expressed in this way, but by ards ofdev or (adds) 
éavto ovvoidev, Nor is it possible to understand what 
value this appeal to the author's own conscience would 
have for the readers. In v. 81 f., vill. 18-18, ef. x. 25, 
37 f., xiv. 11, they had read how the most guileless of 
men had acknowledged the insufficiency of His own testi- 
mony to Himself. Consequently they would not have 
understood, nor could they have allowed the exaltation of 
the disciple above his master and the proud appeal to 
his own consciousness as the decisive proof of the truth of 
his statement. Therefore it follows, both from the con- 
tents of the passage and from the language used, that the 
éxeivos to whom the author appeals is another and a higher 
one than himself. But it would be only an empty phrase, 
if the one to whom he appeals to bear witness to the truth 
of his statement were some person already dead, who can 
neither affirm nor deny what he says. Nor can God be 
meant, the only natural expression for which would be 
6 Geos oifdev, On the other hand, it is quite in keeping 
with the Johannine usage for éxetvos to refer to Christ 
(n. 16). It seems even more natural here than in 1 John; 
for, in the first place, John has here reached the con- 
clusion of the earthly life of the Lord, and He is the one 
overshadowing figure in all the preceding narratives. 
John and his readers know that He who died on the 
cross lives in the world above ; nor can there be any ques- 
tion in their minds that He who in His earthly life 
showed such wonderfully profound knowledge of the 
human heart (John i. 42, 47 f,, il. 25, iv. 17 £, vi. 64-71), 
now from His heavenly throne, to which the cross was 
only preparatory, knows, proves, and judges even more 
deeply the innermost thoughts and works of His servants 
upon earth (Rev. ii, 2, 9, 18, 23). In the second place, 
as indicated by the address to the readers, John imagines 
himself in the midst of the assembled congregation. Here, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 22% 


however, the Christians of that time knew Christ to be 
always invisibly near (Matt. xviii. 20; 1 Cor. v. 4; Rev. 
ii. 1). In an address to the assembled congregation, a 
“Thou knowest that I speak the truth” (cf. John xxi. 
15-17) directed to Christ passes naturally into the assur- 
ance intelligible to every member, ‘“‘ He, the only one, He 
who is exalted from the cross to heaven, He knows that 
His witness on earth speaks the truth, and that he does 
not here testify out of any feeling of self-complacency in 
order to represent himself as the only faithful witness 
among the apostles, but only in order that the readers 
may possess the same unwavering faith which he himself 
enjoys.” Such an affirmation has the force of an oath. 
This is the climax of all the testimony of this Gospel to 
its author. This is not the place to discuss why John 
makes so much of this testimony, and why he lets it culmi- 
nate just in this passage in an appeal to Christ, as the 
highest witness and judge, that has the force of an oath. 
The exposition of the actual situation is of itself 
sufficient refutation of the attempts to make the testi- 
mony of the Fourth Gospel refer to some other person 
than the apostle John (n. 17). Those efforts are fre- 
quently influenced by the idea that the author refers to 
himself in some very mysterious manner. Again there 
are others who think that between the attempt to identify 
himself with the intimate disciples of Jesus and the con- 
sciousness that he was making a false claim, the author’s 
attitude becomes one: of wavering. To the extent that 
this opinion is based upon xix. 35 it must fall to the 
ground of its own weight, even if the preceding interpre- 
tation of this passage be incorrect. Since it is incon- 
ceivable that, at the very moment when for the first time, 
with the exception of the general testimony of 1. 14, he 
unhesitatingly describes his account as that of an eye- 
witness, the courage and intelligence of the author should 
have failed him, to such an extent as no longer to render 


222 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


him able in intelligible language to say to his readers 
that he himself is this eye-witness, or that he is someone 
else who received his information directly or indirectly 
from the eye-witness. If this was the actual relation of 
the author to the apostle John, then 1. 14 is a weak 
attempt to deceive the readers as to the real facts, and 
xix. 85 is the halting confession of a false witness who is 
no longer able to maintain his réle. But granted that 
the contradiction between i. 14 and xix. 35 can be got rid 
of, by proving in the former passage, with the aid of 
exegetical art, that it is not the testimony of an eye- 
witness, and by reading into xix. 35 the clear confession 
of the author who was not the eye-witness as to his actual 
relation to this person, yet the consistent silence of the 
Gospel concerning the apostle John and his entire family 
imeiyool, xi, 231., xvi. Loi, xix: 26 fs $5, ex gee 
is an unsolvable riddle, or rather an unreasonable and 
purposeless trifling. If, as the fact that they are twice 
addressed would seem to indicate, the author was known 
to the readers, as the writer of a letter is usually known 
to the persons whom he addresses, the avoidance of the 
use of “I” and of “ we” in the narrative, and his constant 
suppression of his own name and that of his family, is not 
to be considered an aimless attempt to create an air of 
mystery, even less so than is the similar procedure of 
Mark; but it is an expression of that sense of fitness 
which in various ways meets us everywhere in the his- 
torical literature of this time, Christian and non-Christian 
alike. Therefore, the only question is whether the witness 
of the Gospel to its author, which was clear to the original 
readers at once, and is so to the modern reader after a 
little reflection, is worthy of credence or not. The testi- 
mony of the post-apostolic Church as to the origin of the 
book (§ 64) does not so confirm its witness and correspond 
so exactly to it that it may be regarded as simply an echo 
of it; for, with regard to the time and place of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 25 


composition of the Gospel, concerning which the tradition 
of the ancient Church gives very definite information, no 
clear testimony is to be derived from John i—xx., of 
which the tradition of the origin of the Fourth Gospel in 
Ephesus late in the apostolic age might be regarded as a 
reflexion. 


1, (P. 207.) As to addressing a person to whom a writing is dedicated, 
apart from the dedication itself, cf. above, pp. 81, 85, nn. 2,10. Concerning 
Just. Dial. viii. exli., cf. ZfKG, viii. 45f. As a rule, such direct address 
occurs also in writings at the beginning of which there stands a dedication, 
but in such cases only at the end of the entire writing or at the transition 
from one book of a larger work to another, so that xx. 31 would be less 
striking than xix. 35. The address xx. 31 is not without example even in 
writings in which the preface has not the form of a letter of dedication 
(Jos. Vita, 76; cf. Ant.i., Procem. 2). On the other hand, the direct address, 
xix. 35, is unprecedented in historical literature. There is, of course, no 
parallel here with such narratives as the accounts of the death of Polycarp 
or of the martyrs of Lyons, which have throughout the form of epistles 
(Pair. Ap., ed. maior, ii. 132, 162 ; Eus. H. #. v. 1.3); the comparison lies 
rather with the Passio Perpetue (ed. Robinson, p. 62. 13), which, partly in 
Johannine forms, show that it is intended for reading in the meetings of 
the Church (pp. 61, 94). In other writings, as in the pseudo-Cyprian ad 
Novatianum and de Aleatoribus, it appears from addresses, such as fratres 
dilectissimt, that they are not treatises, but either sermons or letters. 

2. (P. 207.) Itis indeed said of those who are already believers, that they 
came to their faith through a new experience, ii. 11, 22, xx. 8, or that they 
should believe, xi, 15, 40, 42, xiii. 19, xiv. 1, 11, 29, xx. 24-29, or it is denied 
that they have the right belief, cf. iii. 2 with iil. 11f., or viii. 30f. with 
viii. 45-47 ; also iv. 41f., 48-53. It is to be further noted that in xix. 35, 
xx. 31 is probably to be read with 8*B muoreinre (“may believe”), not 
muorevonre (“shall believe”), and that an author who writes x. 38, iva yvére 
kal y.wooxnre, is conscious of this difference. 

3. (P. 209.) The comparison of the Logos appearing in the flesh with 
the manifestation of the glory of God, Ex. xiii. 21f., xxxiii. 9f., xl. 34-38, 
is warranted not only by the word éoxjvecev, which the LXX does not 
employ of the Shekinah (it uses, indeed, xaracxnvodv, Num. xxxv. 34; 
1 Kings vi. 13), though it is used by Aquila, Ex. xxiv. 16, xxv. 8, but also by 
the combination of the conceptions oxynvodv and ddfa, as well as by the 
antithesis of the nox) ton and the law given through Moses (vv. 14, 16, 17; 
cf. Ex. xxxiv. 6, 29-35); cf. also John ii. 21; Rev. xxi. 3; Ex. xxxvii. 27; 
Joel iv. 17. Moreover, the metaphorical use of oxfvos, 2 Cor. v. 1, 4, and 
oxnvopa, 2 Pet. i.13f., for the body may have occasioned the employment 
of cxnvodv in this place, and made the thought more intelligible to the first 
readers. The circle of the disciples is designated by écxnyvecey ev jpiv as 
the Church, in whose midst the glory of the Logos dwelt in the flesh, as in 
a tabernacle. But the additional wavres, ver. 16, does not mean an expansion 


224 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of this circle to those who later attained to the belief, among whom the 
Logos had not visibly dwelt—in which case the aorist would not have been 
adhered to—but is explained from the contrast of the many who received, 
and the One from whose fulness all drew as from one single source. 

4. (P. 209.) In Matt. iv. 18-22, ix. 9, x. 2-4; Mark i. 16-20, ii. 14, 
iii. 13-19; Luke v. 2-11, 27, vi. 13-16 we are not informed, as we are in 
John i. 35-51 (al. 52 because of the division of ver. 39), of the organisation 
of a circle of the disciples. We are told simply of the call of those who 
already believe on Jesus to follow and work with Him (vol. ii. 541f.). The 
Synoptists present to us the character outlines only of Peter, the sons of 
Zebedee, and Judas the traitor; concerning the publican among the 
apostles, of whose call we are told (vol. ii. 506f.), as also of Andrew, very 
little is said. On the other hand, Peter G. 40-42, vi. 68, xiii. 6-10, 36-38, 
xviii. 10-27, xx. 2-10, xxi. 2-22) and the traitor (vi. 70f., xii. 4-6, xiii. 2, 11, 
18-30, xviii. 2f.) are, at least, as prominent as they are in the Synoptics. 
However, it is John alone who informs us of the remarks of Philip (i. 43f., 
vi. 5-7, xii. 21f., xiv. 8-10), of Thomas (xi. 16, xiv. 4f., xx. 24-29 ; cf. xxi. 2), 
of Andrew (i. 40f., vi. 8; cf. xii. 22), of Judas the son of James (xiv. 22), 
indeed, very characteristic remarks throughout (cf. Luthardt, Das joh. Ev.? i. 
78-119). The phlegmatic character of Philip, which accounts for the fact 
that he alone of the first disciples had to be expressly invited (i. 48) by Jesus 
to join the Twelve, is reflected in the cumbrous confession (i. 45), especially 
in contrast to the brief evpnxayev tov Meooiav of Andrew (i. 41), which 
expresses no less exultation than the evpyxa of Archimedes. Philip doubt- 
fully makes calculation, while Andrew immediately discovers the means at 
hand (vi. 5-9). He does not venture to submit the wish of the Greeks to 
Jesus until he has consulted the more courageous Andrew ; while the latter, 
as is shown by the fact that he is first mentioned, is ready to make the 
request of Jesus in the name of them both (xii. 21). Also in xiv. 8-10 
Philip still appears more than the others as the doubtful one. It would be 
in special keeping with this character sketch that, as Clem. Strom. iii. 25 
declares—probably following the Gospel of Philip—the remark given in 
Matt. viii. 22, Luke ix. 60 might have been directed to Philip if the 
apostle, and not the evangelist Philip were meant by it (cf. GK, ii. 766; 
Forsch. vi. 26, 158 f., 161). The portrait of Thomas, whose name John alone 
translates (xi. 16, xx. 24; cf. xxi. 2), speaks for itself. Here belongs, too, 
the fact that only John gives an account of the characteristic remarks of the 
brothers of Jesus (vii. 3-10), whose attitude toward Jesus as given in the 
Synoptists is not at all clear (Matt. xii. 46-50, xiii. 55; Mark iii. 21 (2), 
31-35, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19-20; Acts i. 14), and that he as well as Luke 
(i. 26-ii. 51), through important information, gives character to the picture 
of the mother of Jesus (ii. 3-5, xix. 25-27 ; cf. ii. 12, vi. 42), which is entirely 
colourless in the other Gospels. But it is worthy of note that throughout 
his narrative he calls her merely “ His mother,” only once “the mother of 
Jesus” (ii. 1), and never by her name, which Matthew uses 5 times, Luke 
(incl. Acts i. 14) 13 times, and Mark at least once. John lets his adopted 
mother also participate in the anonymity of his whole family. 

5. (P. 209.) In John i. 41, ABMT>XII have xpéroy, also one of the 
later correctors of NS!S*, and a few minuscules, among which are two of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 225 


the Ferrar group (69, 346, on the other hand not 124); N*LIAA and the 
mass of the remainder have zpéros. So also Sh. Moreover, there is not 
much more to gain on this point from the older versions. Sc Ss eliminate 
the characteristic passage, “and one of these disciples of John: Andrew was 
his name, the brother of Simon (Kepha,t Sc). And this Andrew saw Simon 
Kepha on that day (so Ss; only “Simon Kepha,” Sc) and said to him,” etc. 
The copyists who corrected rpéros to mpérov (N* from N*) certainly wished 
to have it understood not adverbially, but as an accusative; because, to 
designate this deed as the first that Andrew did (cf. Matt. v. 24, vil. 5; 
John ii. 10, vii. 51; Rom. i. 8), would be meaningless in a connection where 
nothing of the further action of Andrew is told, and a closer time connection 
of ver. 40 f. with vv. 35-39 is not expressed at all. Moreover, the accusative 
(cf. Matt. xvii. 27), which would mean that Andrew, as the first of those 
whom he found or of all who were found, found Peter, is impossible ; 
because, in the first place, the hypothesis, that Andrew had received and 
later carried out the command to seek men, would have no support in this 
connection, while the notion of Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus, 1889, S. 80), 
that not Jesus, but Andrew, is the subject of etpioxe: Diturmov, ver. 43, 
merits no refutation. But, secondly, rov tdvov would not suit such a con- 
nection; instead of this, airod alone would have been more appropriate. 
We are, therefore, to read mp@ros. But this finds its antithesis, of course, 
not in Philip who finds Nathanael later (ver. 45),—about which the reader 
knows nothing in ver. 41, and to which his attention is not called in ver. 45, 
—but in the other of the two men who have been already introduced. As 
the first of the two disciples of John who had followed Jesus, Andrew finds 
his brother (cf. John xx. 4, 8; Matt. xxii. 25; Rom. x. 19). In this way 
only is explained the strongly accented roy iSiov, which, just as mpéros here, 
and as iSvos everywhere (especially in connection with ékaoros, John xvi. 32 ; 
Acts ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 23, 38), is intended adversely or distributively. 
Each of the two men finds his brother, but Andrew as the first finds his. 

6. (P. 210.) In regard to Nathanael= Bartholomew, ef. vol. ii. 524 and 
vol. i. 31; in regard to the variation of the list, cf. vol. ii. 522f.n.1. Spith 
(ZfW Th, 1868, S. 168 ff., 309 ff.) wished to show that Nathanael is a pseudonym 
for the author, who, however, still wishes to pass for the apostle John. 
Aside from xxi. 2, where Nathanael stands next to the sons of Zebedee, the 
author through the use of this name would have made it absolutely impos- 
sible for the reader to identify him with the nameless disciple of xiii. 23 ff., 
etc., and especially to recognise in him the apostle of the wholly different 
name of John. The name Nathanael, which, according to the O.T., the 
Talmud (vol. i. 31), and Josephus (Ant. vi. 8.1, xx. 1.2), has been borne by 
Hebrews of all times, is said to be an entirely non-Hebrew invention of the 
Gospel, a Grecised (!) form of Elnathan or Jonathan (S, 324, 329f.). On the 
contrary, Hilgenfeld (Z4/WTh, 1868, S. 450; cf. also N.T. extra Can.? iv. 
(evangeliorum secundum Heb., sec. Petrum, etc.) 119) held firmly to his 
theory that Nathanael should = Matthias of Actsi.23. The Apostolic Church 
Directory, which counts Nathanael among the twelve apostles, agrees in this 
with the correct interpretation, while its distinction of Nathanael and Bar- 
tholomew is as mischievous an invention as the distinction of Peter and 
Cephas and the whole catalogue of such distinctions (N.T. extra Can.? iv. 111). 

VOL. III. 15 


226 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


7. (P. 211.) In regard to the forms by which the authors introduce 
themselves in the Gospels, the Acts, and the other N.T. literature, cf. above, 
pp. 55, 86,n.11. That Matthew, just as Xenophon or Thucydides, Polybius 
or Josephus, does not omit his name from the narrative, is fully counter- 
balanced by the fact that, in distinction from them as well as the other 
historians of the N.T., he does not in any way identify the author with the 
Matthew mentioned in ix. 9, x. 3, or even hint at such identification, and 
that he offers absolutely no sort of substitute for the I of the author which 
fails in his whole book. That John in the prologue speaks of himself in the 
first person (plural), but in the narrative in the third person, is not especially 
remarkable. Josephus and many others have done the same (above, p. 86). 
The peculiarity of John consists merely in the twofold fact that he addresses 
the readers in the midst of the narrative (xix. 35; cf. xx. 31, above, p. 223, 
n. 1), and that in the same narrative where, as over against the “you” of the 
address an “I” or a “we” would be the more natural and more correct way 
for an author to designate himself, he retains the third person (weuwapripykev, 
héye). But this isno more grossly inconsistent with good style than when 
one of us signs a letter: “Hearty greetings from your old friend, X,” or 
when, in petitions to a Minister of high rark, the latter is addressed as 
“ Your Excellency” and “You,” notwithstanding the writer of the petition, 
avoiding every “I,” speaks of himself constantly as the “ your most obedient 
servant”; or when a popular author writes: ‘‘ Know, dear reader, that the 
writer of this is a grandson of the hero of his story.” In ancient times, also, 
we find examples of the same sort of awkwardness. With the more definite 
ey Téprios 6 ypawyas (Rom. xvi. 22), cf. Mart. Polyc. xx. 2, Evapeoros 6 ypaas, 
without ¢eyo (therefore in the third person with ipas ... juiv); also the 
appearance of the first and second person, even before the real greeting, 
which contradicts the style of the ancient form of greeting (see vol. i. 369f. 
n. 1); or inscriptions such as those in Hogarth, Devia Cypria, p. 114, No. 36: 
“ Apollo erected this column to his father and mother according to your own 
order.” 

8. (P. 212.) The passage i. 35-39 is one of the most picturesque in the 
Gospel. The Baptist stands with two of his disciples; his eye falls upon 
Jesus (35 f., much more colourless ver. 29). The brief exclamation, “ Behold 
the Lamb of God,” attracts attention, and results in action (ver. 37). At first, 
not noticing those who were following Him, Jesus turns around (as He hears 
their steps) and lets His gaze rest in contemplation upon them. In direct 
form of speech, question, answer, and rejoinder follow. The Hebraistic form 
of address is retained. The ever memorable hour of the first meeting with 
Jesus is exactly noted, though the reader is left to infer the contents of many 
' hours of conversation from the ebipyxapyev of Andrew. 

9. (P. 218.) In iv. 1 paénrai has the wider meaning ; but of panrai, which 
immediately follows in iv. 2, has the narrower meaning, as, of course, is to be 
understood in iii. 22~iv. 38. They are those who had been drawn by Jesus 
into His company to work with Him, and therewith commissioned (arérrak«a, 
iv. 38, cf. xiii. 20, xvii. 18, xx. 21) His dmdorodo, xiii. 16. The number of 
the baskets, vi. 13, bears witness to the number of these disciples ; and where 
the question has to do with the distinguishing of these followers who adhered 
to Him from the beginning to the end as against the larger circle of the disciples 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 227 


who only temporarily accompanied Him, this number is three times expressly 
repeated, vi. 67, 70, 71, otherwise only one other time, xx. 24. It is signifi- 
cant, however, that the apostle John, as well as the apostle Matthew (x. 2) 
and Mark, who repeats the narratives of an apostle (vi. 30), uses only once 
the title dréaroNos (xiii. 16); while Luke, who was not an'apostle, makes use 
of it 6 times in the Gospel and about 30 times in the Acts. Their installation 
in office, which John no more narrates than the apostle Matthew, is designated 
by the former (otherwise only by Luke) as exdéyeoOa, vi. 70, xiii. 18, xv. 16, 
19, while he never uses this word of an act of Jesus which had to do with 
other men (also éxXexrds, i. 34, N* Se Ss etc., only once of the Messiah). It 
is, therefore, to be considered a bold stroke that F. v. Uchtritz, Studden eines 
Laien iiber das Hv. nach Jo. 1876, 8. 222, gave to the word in xiii. 18 another 
meaning from that which it has'in vi. 70, particularly since in xiii. 10f., 
18-21, as in vi. 70f. (cf. xvii. 12), the same antithesis prevails between the 
whole of those present, whom Jesus had chosen, and the one member of this 
circle who forms the sad exception. The significance of Jesus’ choice of all 
those present is given us in the thrice repeated the twelve (vi. 67-71) ; but in 
chap. xiii. this is expressed by the name dmdorodos (xiii. 16) and by the 
ratification of the remaining disciples in their mission, xiii. 20,—2.¢. droorody 
(Rom. i. 5; 1 Cor. ix. 2; Gal. ii. 8),—which was made necessary by the 
desertion of the apostle Judas. Also from the close connection of xv. 16 with 
ver. 18 it follows that éxéyeoOa does not signify reception into the number 
of the believing worshippers,—which no Gospel traces back to an é«déyerOa 
of Jesus,—but to choice as apostles. They are those called to be preachers, 
xv. 20, 26 f. 

10. (P. 213.) With dyaray (xiii. 23, xix. 26, cf. xxi. 7, 20), pudeiv (xx. 2) 
is interchanged, as in the account of the similar relation to the brother and 
sisters of Bethany (xi. 3, 5, 36). The latter word is not confined to personal 
friendship (cf. per contra, xvi. 27, xxi. 15-17; 1 Cor. xvi. 22), though it is 
still the more distinctive expression for it. 

11. (P. 214.) Polycrates in Eus. H. EL. v. 24. 3, Iadvvns 6 émt 76 orn bos rod 
kupiov avarecov. Similarly Iren. iii. 1.1; Orig. in Eus. vi. 25.9; Jerome, 
Pref. Comm. in Mt. (Vall. vii. 3). By later writers 6 émuornOsos ; cf. Routh, 
Reliquie Sacre*, i. 42. The first exegete who formally states, and through 
appeal to John xxi. 24 establishes, what the others presuppose, namely, that 
the unnamed person in xiii. 23 is identical with the evangelist and apostle 
John, is Origen in Jo. (Ed. Preussen) tom. xxxii. 20. 

12. (P. 214.) When the Gospel to the Hebrews apparently makes James 
the Lord’s brother take part in the Last Supper (@K, ii. 700), it belongs to the 
realm of fable, if for no other reason because of the chronological contradiction 
which the whole narrative of the Supper would thus have with 1 Cor. xv. 7. 
We can no more infer from this inclusion of James in the circle of John xiii, 
that the redactor of this Gospel held James for an apostle, than that one who 
was not an apostle had taken part in the meal (ef. Forsch. vi. 277f.). Still 
less can the master of the house in which the Last Supper took place (as 
Delff, op. cit. 83, would have us believe), be thought of as a table companion, 
who then is to be identified further with the young man of Mark xiv. 51; for 
although a friendly relation between Jesus and this house must certainly have 
existed, it is not to be considered too intimate a one simply because of the 


228 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


question of the disciples (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. 19), and 
because of the way in which the two disciples are to find the house (Mark 
xiv. 13). With these facts as well as with such positive statements as Matt. 
xxi. 17, xxiv. 1-3, xxvi.6; Mark xi. 11, 15,19, 27, xiv. 3, 13, 16; Luke xxi. 
37, xxii. 10, it is an irreconcilable fancy of Delfi’s (S. 89, 94) that this house 
was the regular lodging place of Jesus. The clothing of the young man men- 
tioned in Mark xiv. 51, and the distinction there made between him and the 
company of Jesus, excludes him from having had any part in the Supper. 
As to the actual facts in the case, see vol. ii.491 f. Jesus does not send word 
to the master of the house that with him and his family, but that with His 
own disciples He wishes to keep the Passover in his house (Matt. xxvi. 18 ; 
Mark xiv. 14; Luke xxii. 11). Jesus and the Twelve made a household and 
a company at the table (Matt. x. 25 ; John xii. 6) of more than the requisite 
size for the Passover meal (cf. Ex. xii. 4). If, according to Jos. Bell. vi. 9. 3, 
the number of the participants might not be less than 10 (so also the Jeru- 
salem Targum on Ex. xii. 4), but sometimes rose even to 20, yet Josephus 
took the number 10 as that nearest the average for a basis of his reckoning 
of those present at the feast. 

13. (P. 216.) Here P. Cassel’s Das Ev. der Séhne Zebedit (1870) should 
be named, and his Die Hochzeit von Cana (1883, S. 49-64). Cassel found 
these two brothers suggested in i. 35 ff., and recognised in xiii. 23, xix. 26, 
xx. 2 the John whose name was to some extent to be translated by év jydra 
6 "Inoods. James was considered as the one referred to in xviii. 15. But 
when Cassel, against whose views up to this point there is nothing to be said 
(see above, p. 209 f.), distinguishes without reason (and no reason can be dis- 
covered) the witness and the reporter in xix. 35 from the eye-witness of the 
death of Jesus in xix. 26f., he comes to the assertion that the €wpakds, 
pepaprupnxos—who is designated also by exeivos (xix. 35)—is James, and that 
therefore he and not John is the narrator in chaps. i-xx. In other words, 
he claims that James is the actual author of the Gospel (S. 49f.), which was 
written, consequently, before 44, and through the addition of chap, xxi. 
enlarged by his younger brother John at a date considerably after the death 
of Peter, but published otherwise practically unchanged (8. 52-55). The 
words, xxi. 24, oiSayev—eoriy (very exactly quoted by Cassel, S. 55) are held 
by Cassel to be an ungenuine gloss taken from xix. 35. This is not, however, 
adhered to in his second work, 8. 57. 

14. (P. 219.) Throughout the Fourth Gospel an actual sense perception, 
or at least an experience comparable to this, and to be designated by this 
name, is posited as a presupposition of the paprupety, i. 34, iii. 11, 32 (v. 37), 
viii. 14, xii. 17 (xii. 41), xv. 27; 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14; Rev. i. 2; cf, vol. ii. 
155f. n. 9. 

15. (P. 219,) The Greek interpreters, in spite of the remarkable phrase- 
ology of xix. 35, have clung to the opinion that the evangelist himself is the 
only subject of all the verbs of this sentence (Chrys. Hom. Ixxxv. in Jo., Montf. 
viii. 507). It is difficult to explain the statement of Cyril of Alexandria 
(Migne, lxxiii. col. 677), oby érepdy riva onuaiver, on the basis of any other 
interpretation of the éxetvos. This remained the ruling opinion. Even Baur 
did not make use of the passage to establish his opinion that the author 
throughout the Gospel pursued his purpose to be known by the readers as 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 229 


the disciple beloved by Jesus, and as John the apostle and the author of the 
Apocalypse, but refrained, however, from so announcing himself directly. 
In fact, in xix. 35 as well as in i. 14 it was rather a mere spiritual vision 
which the author had in mind (Krit. Unters. iiber die kan. Evv. 1847, S. 
364-389). It was his pupil Késtlin (ThJb, 1851, S. 206-211) who, mainly 
from this passage, and especially from the éketvos, first established the view 
that the author of John i.-xx. does not identify himself at all with the apostle 
John,—an identification which is first made by the author of xxi. 24,—but 
that he distinguishes clearly between himself, the author, and the apostle as 
his main authority. This was taken up by Hilgenfeld, who, however, more 
in the view of Baur, held that the purpose of the author was to pass for the 
apostle. At the same time, instead of following in the line of Kostlin and 
explaining xix. 35 as an uncontradictory expression of the author, who makes 
a clear distinction between himself and the apostle, he found in the very 
unnaturalness of the expression a proof that the author, who had written also 
xxi, 24 and thereby gave his book out for a work of the apostle, had in the 
determinative passage unintentionally betrayed his difference from the apostle 
(Die Evv. nach threr Entstehung u. geschichtl. Bedeutung, 1854, S. 341; Der 
Paschastrett der alten Kirche, 1860, 8. 151f., 403 ; Hinl.'731). The discussions 
concerning éxetvos in John which this theory occasioned between G. Steitz 
(ThStKr, 1859, 8. 497-506; 1861, 8. 267-310) and A. Buttman (TAStK7, 
1860, S. 505 ff. ; Zf/WTh, 1862, S. 204 ff.) have not helped to any clearness of 
exegesis. It is also of little interest to follow out the opinions of others in 
their wavering between the interpretations of Késtlin and Hilgenfeld. The 
present A¢ye:, with its added purpose in regard to the readers, leaves no doubt 
that the Aéyer is the author who is here addressing the readers, and not some 
dead authority from whom the author directly or indirectly claims to have 
received the material and the spirit of his report. Such an authority does 
not speak to the readers in the present tense. Even if the author in a vivid 
representation could cite him as a witness still to be heard to-day (cf. i. 15), 
he could not have cited him as one addressing the readers and having their 
religious advancement in view. If, however, every reader had to recognize 
the author as the subject of Aéye, then the author was to be charged not with 
an ambiguous, but with a meaningless phraseology, in case we understand 
him as wishing to distinguish between the subject of Xéyex—which is not 
detached from the preceding statement either by a pronoun or in any other 
way (possibly érz 6 ypdyas adnO7y Aéyer)—and the subject of pepapripykev, and 
so of the eipaxas, and the person again indicated by atrod. The only question 
there can be is as to whether éxeivos also indicates the same subject ; cf. Forsch. 
vi. 183 f. and the following note. 

16. (P. 220.) The “eéxeivos” kar’ e€oxnv (Schol. on Aristoph. [Nuwb.], 
The Clouds, 195, ed. Dindorf, i. 196, compared with the “airds éba” of the 
Pythagoreans) is used in John vii. 11, xix. 21 (ix. 12, 28) by those who stood 
far aloof from Jesus, or in unfriendly relations with Him. It is also used 
from a disciple’s point of view in 2 Tim. ii. 13, where in the preceding 
sentence (cvvameOdvopev rd.) Christ is not named, but is only to be under- 
stood as referred to by the pronoun. In 1 John ii. 6, iii. 3, 5, 7, 16, iv. 17, 
it appears as a firmly established expression. The 6 Geds oidev, 1 Cor. 
xi. 11, 31 (xii. 2, 3), is formal, and the formule for solemn assertion in 1 Thess, 


230 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ii. 5, 10; Gal. i. 20; 2 Cor. i. 23, xii. 19; Rom. 1-9, ix. 1; Phil. i. 8.(1 Tim. 
vezi; 2 Limi. 1), especially 3 John 12, are to be contpared with it as 
related i in kind: To the testimony of the Chureh i is added that of the “truth 
itself,” 2.¢. of Christ (John xiv. 6; Papias in Eus. H. Z. iii. 39.3). For the 
truth of his own testimony, io ever, John does not appeal in this Epistle 
to his own consciousness, but to the knowledge of the recipient of the letter. 
Gerhard (Harmonia Ev. ad locum, ed. Jen. 1617, p. 874) mentions certain 
who have applied the éxeivos to the soldier Longinus, who ran the spear into 
Jesus’ side ; and others (p. 883) who, in appeal to Rom. ix. 1, have referred it 
to Christ, as the present writer has done above and in ZfKW, 1888, 8. 594. 
Recently essentially the same interpretation has been advocated by H. Dechent 
in ThStKr, 1899, 8. 446 ff., and Hausleiter, Zwei apost. Zeugen fiir d. Jo. Hv. 
1904, S. 27. Sanday also in The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905, shows 
himself favourably disposed towards this view, as doubtless others will be; 
ef. HT, 1905, Nov. p. 51. 

17. (P. 221.) The “presbyter John,” who owes his existence to the 
critical needs and devices of Eusebius (vol. ii. 452), served first as a suitable 
author of Rev., and incidentally also as author of the shorter Epistles of 
John. More recently the Gospel also has been repeatedly ascribed to him. 
This hypothesis has been developed in fullest detail by the novelist and 
dramatic poet Fr. v. Uchtritz [+ 1875] (Studien eines Laien tiber das Ev. nach 
Jo. 1876), and without any consideration of this predecessor, who was far 
superior to him in suggestive speculations and in delicacy of treatment by 
the philosopher H. Delff (Gesch. des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. 1889, S. 67-111 ; 
Das 4 Ev. ein authentischer Bericht diber Jesus, 1890; Neue Beitrége zur 
Krituk u. Erklérung des 4 Hv. 1890; ThStKr, 1892, 8. 72-104). Both agree 
that the nameless disciple (i. 35 ff., xiii. 23 ff., xviii. 15f., xix. 26 ff., xx. 2) is 
the author of the Gospel, yet not the apostle John, but the presbyter John of 
Ephesus. Uchtritz makes a few insufficient attempts (S. 220 ff.), while Delff 
considers it superfluous to demonstrate how it was possible or even probable 
that one who was not an apostle should partake of the Last Supper—over 
against the distinct statement of the Synoptics and of the Fourth Gospel 
itself (above, pp. 214, 227 ff. nn. 9, 12). Both leave unexplained the strange 
silence of the Fourth Gospel in regard to two of the three apostles who stood 
closest to Jesus, and as to the entire family of Zebedee (above, p.211f.). But 
both think that they can prove that the author, who appears as a member 
of the exclusively Galilean discipleship of Jesus (i. 35-51, ef. vii. 52; Mark 
xiv. 70; Acts ii. 7,in reference to all the disciples in Jerusalem) was no 
Galilean, but a man of Jerusalem, and did not belong to the regular follow- 
ing of Jesus. That this theory is wrecked by the inseparable connection 
of chap. i. with chaps. ii-iv. has been already shown (p. 213f.). Moreover, 
the acceptation of interpolations, by which Delff has tried to strengthen his 
hypothesis (Geschichte des Rabbi Jesus von Naz. 8. 97 ff., Das 4 Hv. S. 11-16. 
If we correct the entirely faulty numbering of the verses in accordance with 
the reconstruction of the text given in Das 4 Ev. S. 30-94, the fol lowing 
passages are omitted : i. 1-5, 9-18, ii. 1-11, 17, 21-22, iv. 44, 46-54, vi. 1-29, 
37-40, 40b, 540, 59, vii. 39 [45-58 placed "before 37, "38, 40-44}, xii. 16, 33, 
38-41, xiii. 20, xx. 11-18; in 1890, xix. 35-37 was also added),—affords no 
help as long as there remains i. 51, according to which, even without the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN ek 


textually uncertain dmdpri, the whole number of these newly won disciples 
are to be from that time onwards the witnesses of the wonder-revelation of 
Jesus, and as long as there is left xv. 27 (cf. xvi. 4), according to which the 
whole number of the table companion’ were constant followers of Jesus. 
From xix. 27, Uchtritz (S. 287) and Delff (Geschichte Jesu, S. 82) conclude 
that John possessed a house of his own, and that it was in Jerusalem (as to 
further fantasies of Delff, see above, p. 227, n. 12). With equal right one 
might conclude from John xvi. 32 that all the apostles were owners of 
houses in Jerusalem, and in the same night in which Jesus spoke these 
final words fled from His presence to their eleven dwellings. Cf. with the 
expression, Luke xviii. 28; Acts xxi. 6; Jos. Bell. i. 33. 8. Further, dm’ 
exeivns ths Spas (Matt. xv. 28, xvii. 18) is not the same as év ex r. dpa, John 
iv. 53; Luke vii. 21, or airy r7 Spa, Luke ii. 38, x. 21, xii. 12. The meaning 
is merely that, from the moment Jesus spoke, John fulfilled the duty of a 
son to the mother of Jesus, who was now, as it were, deserted—a filial care that 
must have appeared during the attendance upon the festival in Jerusalem 
in other ways, which through lack of information cannot be more definitely 
ascertained, as afterward it showed itself when both had returned to their 
residences in Capernaum (John ii. 12), whence Mary a few weeks later again 
came to Jerusalem (Acts i. 14, ii. 2, 7) with the other Galilean women of the 
company of Jesus (Luke xxiii. 49, 55), her sons and the apostles, to dwell in 
that city for the future, as did the apostles and brothers of Jesus. The idea 
that Jesus could not have committed His mother thus to the apostle John, 
who himself had a mother that believed in Jesus (Uchtritz, S. 204 f.), is due 
to the mistake of supposing that it was a question of providing John with a 
mother, instead of Mary with a son, who would consider her sorrow and take 
care of her as Jesus would have done. The natural sons of Mary were at 
all events not at that time the right ones for such a service (see vol. i. 104 f., 
vol. ii. 239f.; Forsch. vi. 336 f. A. 1). Delff found support for further 
vagaries in xviii. 15, 16, according to which John was supposed to be a 
relative of Annas’ (rather of Caiaphas’, for he is the only one whom John 
designates as the high priest). But that yyworés in the Bible, as sometimes 
yverdés in the poets since Homer, ordinarily, or exclusively, designates the 
confidential friend, in the sense of relative, becomes no truer by repetition 
(e.g. Cremer, Worterb.” 8. 223; Baljon, Woordenboek, i. 447). Luke xxiii. 49 
is clearly not to be thought of in this connection, while Luke ii. 44 so under- 
stood would be a useless redundancy; for that ovyyevjs designates the 
more distant, yywords the nearer, relative, is in view of Luke i. 61 (cf. i. 36) 
a groundless assertion. As in Acts x. 24, where the combination dvayxaiovs 
gidovs proves that not relatives but trusted friends are to be understood (cf. 
the proofs in Wettstein), so in Luke ii. 44 relatives and acquaintances are 
placed together. Moreover, no proof that yywards=“ relatives” can be found 
in the LXX. In Neh. v. 10 it is a free translation for .y3=servant; in 
2 Kings x. 11, as is shown by the position of the optimates and sacerdotes 
(Vulg.) and the “and,” by which these three classes are joined to the house 
of Ahab and the kingly princes (cf. vv. 6-8), relatives are not meant, but 
friends belonging to the court. No other meaning is apparent in Ps. xxxi. 
12, lv. 14, Ixxxviii. 9,18. But Delff found in Polycrates of Ephesus, circa 
195 (Eus. H. H. v. 24, 3, above, p. 205, n, 27), another and more definite 


232 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


evidence that the evangelist belonged to the high priestly aristocracy. In- 
asmuch as he designates the John buried in Ephesus as the evangelist, but 
not as the apostle, it is claimed that he knew that he was no apostle, and 
this in contradiction to the conviction of his contemporary and fellow- 
countryman, Ireneeus, of his still older countrymen, the Alogi, and of Leucius 
Charinus, as well as of all the other heretics and Church teachers before and 
after his time (above, p. 177f.). However, his statement és éyev7On icpeds To 
méradov mepopexos is said to bear witness to the fact that this same John, 
on one occasion on the Day of Atonement, without being ruling high priest, 
officiated in the full high priestly dress (Geschichte Jesu, S. 93; 4 Evangelium, 
S. 9) as substitute for the real high priest, who had been hindered, or, as he 
puts it later, when this view is rejected (TAStKr, 1892, S. 93), that John was 
“‘a priest of the first high priestly rank.” The aristocratic reserve which 
this man of rank, who had leaned on the breast of the Lord, is held to. 
have observed toward the Church of Jesus, we may estimate by the fact that 
he possibly is identical with the John of Acts iv. 6 (read rather "Iwva6as) 
(Delff, Geschichte Jesu, 8. 95). He is said to have written his Gospel before 
the destruction of Jerusalem for the sake of his colleagues in that city 
(ThStKr, 8. 83-90). That the readers are twice addressed would then 
probably be explained by the fact that he had invited these mentioned in 
Acts iv. 6 to his reception room, and had read his composition to them, 
according to the custom of the literary men of the time, before he gave it to 
the public at large. From beginning to end Delff has made simply an earnest 
effort to weaken by exegesis and criticism the witness found within the 
Fourth Gospel itself. Of the subterfuges by which Renan, Weizsicker, 
Harnack, and others have thought to reach the same result, even this cannot 
be said; cf. Forsch. vi. 186-190. 


§ 66. THE SUPPLEMENTARY CHAPTER. 


No other historical writing in the N.T., and few histori- 
cal writings of antiquity, have such a clear conclusion as 
does the Fourth Gospel in xx. 30f. Having in view the 
entire contents of the book, which he is now bringing to 
its close, the author declares to the readers, whom he here 
addresses for the second and last time (cf. xix. 35, and 
above, p. 223, nn. 1 and 2), that the oneta of which an 
account is here given, as contrasted with many other 
miracles which Jesus performed in the presence of His 
disciples not recorded in this book, were written that they 
might believe on Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and 
in this faith might enjoy the life which is to be had in His 
name. Ifit be insisted that this distinction between the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 233 


signs of Jesus, which are recorded in this book, and those 
which are not recorded, is confined to the resurrection 
appearances of Jesus (xx. 14-29),—of which there is no 
indication and which is also extremely improbable, because 
the word onpeta is much less adapted to describe these 
phenomena than it is the épya and onpeia of which 
announcement is made in i. 51, and which forms the frame- 
work of the entire narrative (ii. 11, 23, ili. 2, iv. 45, 54, 
me, 36, vi. 26, 30, va, 21,81, 1x. 16,. x. 82-38, 415 
x1. 47, xii. 11, 18, 37, xv. 24),—then there is all the more 
reason for regarding chap. xxi. as a supplement to the 
book, added after its completion. For here also we have 
the account of a onpeiov wrought by Jesus in the presence 
of His disciples, and in xxi. 1, 14 this is connected with the 
two appearances of the risen Jesus of which an account is 
given in xx. 19-29, which is described as a third appear- 
ance, and which, in the nature of the case, has the same 
purpose as the preceding accounts. If, when xx. 30f. 
was written, the addition of this chapter had been con- 
templated, the only appropriate place for the verses would 
have been after xxi. 14, or rather after xxi. 238. 

There is clear evidence also that the composition of 
chap. xxi. has its own peculiar history. In general, this 
chapter has the stamp of the peculiar style of the Fourth 
Gospel (n. 1), which makes it impossible to treat it as an 
appendix added by some unauthorised hand, as we do, for 
example, Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 467 f.); nor is it possible 
to cut out even a part of the chapter as an interpolation, 
as we do other portions of the Gospel, the style of which 
proves that they are not part of the original work (John 
viii. 1-11; see §69, n. 3). The relation of this chapter to 
the body of the book differs from that of such sections as 
these mainly in this, namely, that while it is possible by 
means of existing documents and patristic evidence to 
prove the absence of such sections from the books into the 
text of which they were interpolated, down to the Middle 


234 INIT'RODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ages, so far as we know the Fourth Gospel never circulated 
without chap. xxi., nor is there nearly so much uncertainty 
in the tradition of the text of this chapter as in the case of 
the interpolations mentioned (n. 2). Since now, as is 
indicated by the address to the readers (above, p. 207), 
the book was intended from the first for a Church, or a 
group of Churches, in close touch with the author,—which 
necessarily required that it be read in the congregations,— 
it follows that chap. xxi. must have been added to the book 
before it was circulated outside of this small circle. or if 
the book had been circulated without chap. xxi., there was 
no power on earth which could have prevented copies of 
the Gospel from being read and multiplied without this 
final chapter. The only argument which can be opposed 
to this opinion is the fantastic idea, not worth refuting, 
that the canon of the Gospels was made by an official body, 
which had authority over the whole Church to withdraw 
from. circulation and destroy copies of a Gospel already in 
use, and to substitute in their place the canonical recension 
of the same Gospel. 

Chap. xxl. is therefore not to be thought of as an 
appendix, independent of the history of the origin of the 
Gospels, but as a supplement, added to the Gospel not 
long after it was written, and in the same region where it 
originated. The only interval which it is necessary to 
assume between the composition of chaps. i—xx. and of 
chap. xxi., is that required for the feeling to arise that the 
supplement was necessary, which the author had not felt 
when he wrote xx. 30f., and for the need to be met. On 
the other hand, chap. xxi. cannot be referred to the author 
with the same directness as chaps. 1.—xx. The passage ex- 
hibits several differences from the main body of the book, 
which consist not so much in another style as in a different 
attitude of the narrator to the disciple whom Jesus 
especially loved and to hisfamily. Whereas in chaps. i.—xx. 
all the members of this family remain anonymous (above, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 235 


p. 211 f.), at the very beginning of chap. xxi. John and 
James, while not spoken of by name, are clearly designated 
as the sons of Zebedee (xxi. 2), as is sometimes the case 
in the other Gospels (Matt. xx. 20, xxvi. 37, xxvii. 56; cf. 
Mark x. 35; Luke v. 10). This impresses us all the more 
as an involuntary expression of the point of view natural 
to the author of this account, because in its course John is 
again characterised by a reference to xiii. 23 without any 
name, as in xix. 26, xx. 2. But whereas in xix. 26, xx. 2, 
this is done in the simplest possible manner, merely in 
order to prevent any doubt as to the identity of the 
person in question, in chap. xxl. more emphasis is placed 
upon the designation. The éxeivos in xxi. 7, which is not 
found in the parallel passages, and especially the detailed 
way in which the account in xii. 23-25 is recalled in xxi. 
20, show that someone else is here writing who is no longer 
influenced by the fear lest he should seem to sound his 
own praises. In xxi. 24 it is even more clear that some- 
one else, or rather a number of persons are speaking of 
the apostle and evangelist John in the third person. 
“This (2.e. the disciple concerning whom an incident is 
told in vv. 20-23) is the disciple that beareth witness of 
this (these things) and wrote this: and we know that his 
witness is true.” From its very nature, the “ we” includes an 
“T” and excludes the “he.” or this reason it is impossible 
to appeal on the one hand to i. 14, and on the other_to 
xix. 35 in support of the idea that this “we” includes the 
author of the book, while at the same time he is con- 
cealed behind the third person in 6 paptupav, 6 ypdrpas. 
While in the prologue—.e. outside the narrative sections 
of the Gospel—John does use “we,” which, if occasion 
required, might have been changed to “I,” just as the 
“we” in xxi. 24 is changed naturally into “I” in the 
ojuat of xxi. 25 (n. 3), in the narrative sections he regu- 
larly uses the third person in referring to himself, even 
where, in addressing his readers, the use of the first person 


236 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


would seem to be more natural (xix. 35). It is true that 
xxi. 24, like the prologue, is not in the narrative sections 
of the Gospel, which makes it possible for the “ we” to in- 
clude the author of the book. But that in designating 
himself in the course of one short sentence the author 
should have so wavered and changed between “he” and 
“we” (including himself), it is impossible to assume. 
This abnormality is found neither in i. 14-16 nor xix. 35, 
consequently not in xxi. 24. It is also rendered im- 
possible by the fact that the author of this particular 
Gospel is the last person to appeal to his own testimony to 
himself in affirmation of his truthfulness (above, p. 210 f.). 
We conclude, therefore, that others, who know him on the 
basis of their adequate experience, are here testifying to 
the readers of this book that the witness who speaks to 
them in it is trustworthy. But, like the appeal to the 
Lord’s knowledge in confirmation of the truthfulness and 
pious purpose of the author in xix. 35, this testimony 
seems to be only an addition to the main affirmation, 
namely, that the disciple whom Jesus especially loved is 
the disciple who testifies to and wrote what precedes. 

It is unnecessary to prove that what is said in xxi. 
1-23 is included among the things to which he testifies (epi 
rovrwv) and the things which he wrote (raé7a), The only 
question is whether the object of waptupdéy and ypdayas is 
to be confined to the contents of the supplement. This is 
altogether improbable. In the first place, while the con- 
cluding sentence of the preceding chapter, xx. 30f., shows 
chap. xxi. is a supplement, there is nothing in the chapter 
itself to indicate that it is an independent account. The 
passage John xxi. 1 is connected with what precedes just as 
are John ili. 22, v. 1, vi. 1,—probably according to the cor- 
rect reading without ‘Incods,—while xxi. 1, 14 refer back to 
xx. 19-29, just as iv. 46, 54 do to ii. 1-11. While chap. 
xxi. is thus added as a supplement, it is really an essential 
part of the whole. If xxi. 24 referred exclusively to xxi. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 337 


1-23 this would necessarily be expressed, and, since vv. 
1—23 describe one continuous and uninterrupted event, this 
could have been done by the use of wept tovtov and todrto 
(cf. peta todro, li. 12, as distinguished from pera radra, iii. 
22). In the second place, if ver. 24 referred only to the 
supplement, every reader who understood it would ask who 
wrote chaps. i—xx.; and if it was necessary to assure the 
readers that chap. xxl. was written by the beloved dis- 
ciple of Jesus, it was even more important to make clear 
to them who wrote chaps. 1—xx. If this was omitted 
because it was self-evident, there must have been some 
hint to this effect in ver. 24, which could have been very 
simply indicated by writing «ai mept rodrov and Kai todo, 
That disciple is the author also of the supplement, as he is 
known to be the author of the entire book. In the third 
place, reference is made in ver. 25 to a multitude of books 
which would have to be written in order to set forth in 
detail all the notable things in the history of Jesus. 
Here, as in xx. 30, a contrast is implied to the deeds of 
Jesus set forth in the Fourth Gospel, and to this one book 
with which the readers ought to be content. Hence the 
person, who in ver. 24f. is speaking in the name of a 
number of persons of kindred mind with himself, has in 
view the entire book, which here reaches its final conclusion. 
John xxi. 24 refers to i. 1—xxi. 23. 

To this conclusion it may be objected that traces of a 
hand other than that of the author of the entire book are 
to be found not simply in ver. 24f., but even from ver. 2 
onwards (above, p. 233). From this, to be sure, it would 
follow that the entire supplement was added by the friends 
of John, who came prominently to the front in ver. 24f. 
But this does not harmonise with the statement of this 
very verse, that John was the author of the supplement 
as well as of the rest of the book; or, if the statement 
concerning the authorship of chap. xxi. was written by 
another hand, there would be the same authority for the 


238 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


authorship of the entire Gospel. The latter conclusion is 
certainly to be rejected ; since from chaps. i.—xx. it has 
been shown (§ 65) that the apostle John is here conceived 
of and represented, not as an authority upon whom the 
author depended, but as himself the author of the book, 
and since, from the difference in the way in which John is 
referred to in chap. xxi. and chaps. i—xx.,it has been con- 
cluded that chap. xxi. is not from the same hand as chaps. 
i.-xx. Consequently the testimony of xxi. 24 (0 ypdrbas 
tadra) agrees literally with the result of the exegetical 
study of these preceding chapters. This is not so, how- 
ever, with regard to xxi. 1-23. At the same time there 
is nothing peculiar about the use of 0 ypdyas wadra in 
connection with this supplement. As good a letter writer 
and author as Paul regularly made use of an amanuensis 
to whom he dictated ; accordingly Peter could say that he 
had written a short letter to the Christians of Asia Minor 
just as though he had written it with his own hand, 
although he had not even dictated it, but, after stating 
what he wanted written, had left its entire composition 
to Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12, vol. ii, 149f). As regards xxi. 
1-28, this or some similar relation must have existed 
between John, who in xxi. 24 is declared to be the author 
of the supplement, and the men who in ver. 24f. are 
clearly distinguished from him, providing the observations 
which show that this account was written by someone 
else than John, and the testimony of xxi. 24 are both 
allowed due weight. With John’s consent, or even at 
his suggestion, persons who were near him recorded the 
things which he more than once had related to them, and 
which he certainly repeated before he wrote them down. 
If they were conscious of having added nothing of their 
own, and of having omitted nothing contained in John’s 
communications, they could say that John was the author 
of this account; nor is there any apparent reason why 
they should have distinguished sharply between the direct 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 239 


Johannine authorship of chaps. 1—xx. and his indirect 
authorship of xxi. 1-23. There would be occasion to 
charge these persons with culpable inaccuracy, which 
could hardly be defended against the suspicion of being 
intended to deceive the readers, only in case the apostle 
had left behind him as his work chaps. i—xx., and after 
the apostle’s death the author of chap. xxi. had added the 
supplement without his knowledge or consent. But this 
assumption is to be rejected not only because of the 
apparent candour of xxi. 24 and the naive tone of ver. 
25, but mainly because it contradicts the language of 
ver, 24. 

The first statement of ver. 24 concerning John is not 
6 ypdyas tadra, but 0 paptupav wept tovrwv ; and not only 
the order of the words is significant, but the change in the 
tense. If pwaprupety here as peyaptipyeev in xix. 35 referred 
to the testimony which John gave when he wrote his 
book, including the supplement, the only appropriate 
place for it would be after ypdpas tadrta, In this case 
also the use of waprupdv instead of paptupycas or pepap- 
tupnxés would be unnatural, but might be justified on the 
ground that the act of writing belongs entirely in the 
past, while testifying by means of a book which outlives 
its author is continuous, lasting as long as the book is 
read (cf. John v. 46 with v. 39). But if these were what 
the writer meant, paptupév would in that case have to 
follow ypdyas, because the continuous testifying is the 
result of the preceding act of writing. When there is 
also taken into consideration the fact that, according to 
the reading, which is probably correct (6 ypdyas, see n. 2), 
“the writer” and “the witness” are two ideas independent 
of each other, which it is possible to refer to two different 
persons, there can be no doubt that John’s testifying is 
thought of as independent of his writing. The former 
still continued at the time when xxi. 24 was written ; 
so the author writes the present, 0 uaprupév: the latter 


240 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


belonged to the past; so he uses the aorist, 0 ypdypas. 
This proves that John was still living when this was 
written. For, in view of the use of the aorist participle, 
it is stylistically impossible that the present should have 
been chosen in order to make vivid oral testimony of the 
past (cf. John i. 15, waptupe? and also «éxpayev), or that the 
present participle should be used without reference to time, 
—as is not infrequently the case in John’s writings (e.g. 
i. 29),—because after the death of John his oral testimony 
quite as much as the composition of the Gospel belonged 
to the past. 

That John was still alive when the supplement was 
added, follows with even greater certainty from xxi. 20-23. 
It is clearly a mistake to seek in these sentences the main, 
still less the exclusive purpose of the supplement. What 
precedes has independent meaning, and even without vv. 
20-23 would not only be worth telling for its own sake, 
but would be also a real addition to the book. Just as in 
xx. 21-23 all the apostles are newly confirmed in the 
calling for which they seemed to be rendered incapable 
by the shattering of their faith (xvi. 32, xx, 9); so in 
xxi. 8-17 in a particular way, Peter who, after the traitor, 
yielded most to the temptations of the hours of Jesus’ 
passion (xiii. 38, xvill. 17-27), is confirmed anew in his 
calling, and indeed on both sides of the apostolic office— 
a.e. as regards the task of winning men for the kingdom 
of God and of Christ by preaching (vv. 3-11), and as 
regards the office of directing the life of the Church (vv. 
15-17, n. 4). 

But this confirmation of Peter concludes with pro- 
phecies as to his personal fate, and indirectly also as to the 
fate of John, the right understanding of which on the part 
of the readers is manifestly a matter of concern to the 
narrator. In the first of these prophecies it is revealed 
to Peter that in his old age, as contrasted with his youth, 
the impulsive and intrusive character of which was still 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 241 


constantly creating trouble for him (xiii. 6-10, 36-38, 
Xvill. 10-11, 17, 25, 27),—qualities which come to view 
again in this chapter (xxi. 7), although not in a dangerous 
way,—he shall stretch out his hands like a helpless old 
man for support and for someone to lead him, while others 
shall put his clothes upon him, and even compel him to go 
where he does not wish to go. If this had meant that at 
the end of his life he was to be given over to the power 
of his enemies, he could not possibly have understood 
that the added injunction of Jesus to follow Him signified 
only that he was to accompany the Lord a few steps 
further until He disappeared from view, as in the earlier 
resurrection appearances. Peter prepares to obey at once 
the command literally ; but he could not do this without 
endeavouring to discover in this, as in the other commands 
and transactions of that day, a deeper symbolic and pro- 
phetic meaning. When Peter connected this command 
with the prophecy of ver. 18, and recalled the conversation 
of xiii. 36-38, he must have understood it to mean—if 
not at once, certainly as soon as he thought the matter 
over—that after a long life he was to follow the Lord 
into the other world by a violent death (n. 4). We have 
already seen (vol. ii. 211 ff.) that Peter did actually under- 
stand these words and xiii. 36 in this way (2 Pet. i. 14). 
These words of Jesus could not be taken to mean more, 
either by Peter or by anyone else who heard them. But 
in ver. 19a the narrator gives the first saying—which is 
clearly a prophecy (ver. 18)—an interpretation which no 
amount of reflection upon the language of the passage 
could of itself produce. According to this interpretation, 
Jesus indicated in this prophecy by what death, ze. by 
what kind of a death, Peter should glorify God. Since 
the language of the prophecy does not even suggest a 
violent death, much less a particular kind of death, such 
as beheading, strangling, or crucifixion, the interpretation 
given by the writer of the supplement must have origin- 
VOL. Ill. 16 


242 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ated after Peter’s death, being suggested by the death 
itself. All doubt in this point is removed when ver. 19a 
is compared with xii. 33 (cf. xviii. 32), which is in all 
respects parallel, and when there are recalled the express 
remarks of the evangelist in two instances, which are at 
least similar to the effect that it was not until after their 
fulfilment that the disciples understood the meaning of 
prophetic utterances and symbolic actions of Jesus (ii. 22, 
xi, 16c0ck, vis 61£, vii. 39, xi. 7, 19, xiv. 20)-26;72m 
xvi. 4, 12f., xviii. 9, xx. 8f.). After Peter was crucified 
in Rome in the year 64 (vol. ii. 165 ff.), Jesus’ words to 
Peter, which made such a profound impression upon Peter’s 
own mind (2 Pet.i. 14), but which heretofore had remained 
somewhat mysterious, were called to mind. Now, in the 
light of what had taken place, it was no longer possible 
to think that in John xiii. 36, xxi. 195, Jesus had meant 
to express only the unimportant truth that Peter would 
sometime die and leave the world, like all men and like 
Jesus Himself. Since Peter died a martyr’s death, it was 
natural in the command to follow Him to find the suggestion 
to Peter that he like Jesus was to die for the sake of God 
and the truth, z.e. that he was to suffer a martyr’s death. 
Since, moreover, Peter like Jesus was crucified, it was felt 
necessary to take the prophetic description of Peter’s de- 
clining years in xxi. 18—especially the stretching out of 
his hands and arms—as a prophetic forecast of this par- 
ticular manner of death (n. 4). 

After the death of Peter, it seemed to the Church as if 
all Jesus’ various prophecies about Peter’s work as a fisher 
of men and as the shepherd of the flock, about the patience 
he would have to learn, about his martyrdom and the 
particular manner in which he was to die, had been ful- 
filled. Thereafter it was almost inevitable ‘that all who 
were familiar with the story related in xxi. 15-22 should 
endeavour to interpret the saying of Jesus with reference 
to John as it had been interpreted with reference to Peter, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 243 


When Jesus replied to Peter, who wanted to apply to 
John the same command that he had received, “If I will 
that he tarry till 1 come, what is that to thee?” and when 
the command to Peter was repeated with strong emphasis 
upon the contrast between him and John, “ Follow thou 
me,” it seemed as if this could only mean that John was 
not to follow Jesus in the sense in which the word of Jesus 
had found fulfilment in Peter’s case—in other words, he 
was not to die a martyr’s death. It seemed at least 
possible that John should not die at all, but live until the 
Lord’s return, an event which makes death impossible for 
those of His followers who witness it. Words of Jesus like 
Matt. xvi. 28, Mark ix. 1, Luke ix. 27 gave this interpreta- 
tion a certain justification. Especially if John survived 
Peter and the other apostles a considerable number of years, 
it was very natural to regard the long life of this apostle 
as proof that he was destined to live until the parousia. 
This view actually became current and assumed the form 
of a definite judgment, “This disciple shall not die” 
(ver. 23). But this judgment is decisively opposed by 
the narrator, and inasmuch as this is the last thing which 
he says about this event,—indeed, the last word before the 
conclusion in ver. 24f. which relates to the entire book,— 
it is clear that the story in vv. 20-22 was told primarily 
to correct the false interpretation of it which had become 
current. 

If this be so, it follows also that chap. xxi. was written 
while John was still living, a conclusion which has often 
been misunderstood and even rejected. If John died and 
was buried in Ephesus, this was a conclusive and final 
refutation of the idea that, according to a prophecy of 
Jesus, he was not to die, but to live until the parousia. 
If, notwithstanding John’s death and burial, the super- 
stition grew up that his death was only apparent, that he 
had secretly fled, as Nero was said to have done, and 
would appear again when the Lord came, all that the 


244 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


author says—his account of the event which gave rise to 
the superstition, the reminder that Jesus did not say in so 
many words that John was not to die, and the repetition 
of the hypothetical statement of Jesus—would be an 
entirely inadequate refutation of the belief. The only 
effective argument against such a superstition would be 
an appeal to those who witnessed John’s death, and above 
all a reference to the grave which was outside the city 
gate. If, however, at the time when the supplement was 
written the superstition had grown to the point where it 
was claimed that John, who had seemed to die and was 
really buried, was still living in his grave, or that the 
grave had been opened by a miracle and that John had 
escaped, against such mi@ou ypaddes, vv. 20-21 would be 
merely childish prattle. When ridicule and reproof failed, 
the only effective answer to such foolishness was spade and 
shovel. But there is no need for these hypothetical con- 
siderations, since it is certain that, from the time of John’s 
death about 100 until the time of Polycrates in 190 and 
long afterwards, no one in Ephesus questioned the fact 
that John had really died and was resting in his grave like 
other men (above, p. 193 f.). 

It has been maintained that vv. 20-23 were not in- 
tended to refute the story about John’s immortality, but 
the claim made after John’s death to the effect that Jesus 
had been mistaken in His prophecy. But who would 
have ventured to make such a claim? The fact that 
Jesus connected His prophecy about His return almost 
inseparably with His prophecy about the destruction of 
Jerusalem (Matt. xxiii. 36-xxiv. 35), and the fact that 
decade after decade passed after the destruction of Jeru- 
salem without the Lord’s return, furnished the strongest 
possible temptation for claims of this sort. -But there is 
not the slightest evidence that between the years 70 and 
170 the Church lost its faith in the parousia, much less 
its confidence in the truthfulness and infallibility of Jesus. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 245 


There was a disposition manifested before the year 70, 
even in the reproduction of Jesus’ prophecies, to interpret 
elastically the chronological statements that seemed to 
relate to the parousia (vol. ii. 500f. ; ef. above, p. 158 f.); 
and in the decades after the year 70, men waited entirely 
confident of the truthfulness of Jesus, and certain that 
His promise of His return would be fulfilled. To be 
sure, before the year 70, as well as afterwards, there 
were, of course, weak souls whose faith in the promise, 
like their faith in everything else, wavered, requiring to 
be strengthened by argument and exhortation (Jas. v. 
f-11; 2 Tim. uw. 11-13; Heb. ii. 6-iv. 11, x. 35—xii. 29); 
there were also mockers who despised all the prophecies of 
Jesus (2 Pet. ii. 3-13). But in the present instance it is 
not a case of frivolous mockery, or of a general weakness 
of faith, but of a wrong interpretation of a single saying 
of Jesus’ which was current among the brethren,—among 
believers who were members of the Church,—and a wrong 
expectation regarding John based upon this interpretation, 
both of which errors could persist only until John’s death. 
To attempt their refutation after this event would have 
been foolish. But it would have been even more foolish 
to reply to an unfavourable judgment concerning Jesus 
and His prophecy, without so much as intimating that 
there were such impious opinions in the Church, and that 
they had arisen because of the contradiction between 
Jesus’ prophecy and John’s death. But the most foolish 
thing of all would have been the refutation of such opinions 
by the means which the author uses. A man of any in- 
telligence at all would have attempted the refutation of 
an unfavourable opinion regarding Jesus, which was based 
upon an alleged contradiction between a saying of His 
and the later course of events, only in one of three ways. 
It would have been necessary for him evther to deny out- 
right that Jesus had said what was attributed to Him 
and was declared to be a false prophecy; or, if Jesus 


246 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


really did speak the word which was interpreted as an 
unfulfilled prophecy, to prove that this interpretation was 
false, which could have been accomplished only by giving 
another definite interpretation of Jesus’ words ; or, if this 
was impossible, he would have to show that this undeniable 
and perfectly clear prophecy was fulfilled by facts which 
his opponents had not properly appreciated (n. 5). The 
author does none of these things. He does not deny that 
Jesus spoke the word the meaning or fulfilment of which 
was in question; he mentions no fact which could be con- 
sidered its fulfilment; he does not oppose a wrong inter- 
pretation of the word of Jesus in question by another 
- which could satisfy the reader. The only objection which 
he makes to the widely current interpretation of the saying 
is, that it does not correspond to the language used. It 
varies in two ways: (1) It takes for granted that “to 
tarry until the Lord comes” is equivalent to “not to 
die”; (2) it overlooks the hypothetical character of the 
saying and makes out of it an unconditioned affirmation. 
But this reply, which would have been so foolish if 
John had been dead for ten or thirty years, is natural and 
to the point if it was written in the interval between the 
death of Peter and that of John. Just as the crucifixion 
of Peter made possible a clear and certain interpretation 
of the two sayings of Jesus abont him (vv. 18, 19),—as 
was true also in the case of other significant or enigmatical 
words and deeds of Jesus (ii. 19, 22, xii. 14—xvi. 32 f,),— 
so the author of chap. xxi. and John who stood behind 
him desired that a final judgment about the saying of 
Jesus referring to John be withheld until the Lord had 
made good His word by deeds. Different possibilities 
were conceivable. What Jesus had promised in a purely 
hypothetical sense could actually happen in exact keeping 
with its language, z.e. the Lord might return before John’s 
death. It was also possible that John might die before 
the parousia. In the latter case, the Church found it 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 247 


necessary either to be satisfied with the belief that Jesus 
had spoken of a possibility which was not expected to be 
realised, simply in order to rebuke Peter, and to safeguard 
the freedom of His action, or to take the saying about 
Jesus’ coming in an elastic sense, interpreting it in the 
hight of events, as they had already learned to do in the 
case of Matt. xvi. 28. In this particular instance they 
would have to refer it toa single event of the last time 
connected with the parousia, namely, to the destruction of 
Jerusalem, which would make Jesus’ prophecy mean that 
Peter would die before the year 70, John not until after 
this date. 

We reach accordingly the following conclusions as the 
result of a purely exegetical study of chap. xxi, par- 
ticularly of vv. 18-23 and ver. 24: (1) The supplement, 
chap. xxi., was written subsequent to the death of Peter, 
but while John was still living ; (2) it was not written by 
John with his own hand, but by persons closely associated . 
with him who composed this account with John’s consent, 
probably at his suggestion and upon the basis of his oral 
statements. It was added as a supplement to the com- 
pleted Gospel, and from that time onwards remained an 
inseparable part of it. (3) These same persons testify 
that John is the author of the entire book, making their 
testimony cover also the supplement, without expressly 
saying that John’s authorship of chap. xxi. was indirect, 
as is affirmed in (2), but without in the least concealing 
this view. Proposition (3) agrees with the testimony of 
chaps. i.—xx. concerning itself (§ 65) and the unanimous 
tradition (§ 64); but in view of objections to this threefold 
witness to the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, the 
trustworthiness of the statement remains to be tested 
(§ 69). Proposition (2) is not confirmed by a certain 
tradition which is independent of the text of the supple- 
ment. The stories of the teachers of Clement of Alex- 
andria and the stories of the Muratorian Canon, as well as 


248 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the manner in which later writers tell of the amanuensis 
of whom John made use in the composition of his Gospel 
(above, pp. 178 f., 196f, nn. 4-6), may be echoes of the 
fact that the friends of John had a part in the completion 
and the publication of the Fourth Gospel. But proposition 
(2) does not require the confirmation of external tradition, 
since it is proved absolutely by xxi. 24 and confirmed by 
observations on xxi. 1-23 (above, p. 233 f.). The fact that 
there is no clearer evidence in the tradition for proposition 
(2) is satisfactorily explained by the circumstance that 
the supplement itself, in the same sentence in which it is 
clearly indicated that it was written by friends of John, 
speaks of John as the real author of the supplement as 
well as of the Gospel. It is also explained by the fact 
that proposition (1) was firmly held by the tradition. 
Irenzeus calls John not only the author, but also the pub- 
lisher of his Gospel (n. 6); and Papias testifies even more 
emphatically, and with unmistakable reference to chap. 
xxi, that the Gospel was published and given to the 
Church by John while he was still living (n. 2). Then 
there is the added fact that everywhere and always the 
Gospel was transmitted and circulated with chap. xxi. 
attached, which would be inconceivable if chap. xxi. was 
added to it after the author of chaps. i—xx. had published 
this book which he had written for the Church, and sub- 
sequent to his death. If this were the case, we should 
expect the same or similar phenomena in the tradition 
of the text that we find in the case of Mark xvi. 9—20. 
Finally, as has been shown, xxi. 18-23 is meaningless the 
moment it is assumed that this account was written after 
the death of the disciple whom Jesus particularly loved. 
In view of all these considerations, it may be said to be 
established beyond the possibility of critical- doubt that 
chap. xxi., as well as the entire Gospel, was written and 
put into circulation before the death of Jesus’ long-lived 
disciple, John of Ephesus, z.e. before the year 100. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 249 


1. (@. 233.) Eberhardt, Hv. Jo. cap. 21, 1897, gives on S. 7-19 a review 
of the criticisms which have been made of this chapter, and in the inter- 
vening comment a varied assortment of remarks in regard to its language 
as compared with that of chaps. i-xx. Much more thorough is the work 
of Horn, Abfassungszeit, Geschichtlichkeit und Zweck von Hv. Jo. c. 21, 1904. 
Words and phrases which are found elsewhere only or almost only in John 
are (A=chaps. i.-xx., B=chap. xxi.) : pavepody éaurdv, pavepoto ba, B i. 14 (3 
times, A-6 times ; elsewhere only in Mark iv. 22, and then without reference to 
Jesus, and twice in the ungenuine supplement, Mark xvi. 12, 14); 7 @dAacoa 
7 TeBepeds, B 1 (similarly only in A vi. 1); ex rv pabnrGv adrod Sto, B 2 (just 
so Ain i. 35; cf. ix. 16, xil. 42); dydpiov, BY, 10, 13 (again only in A vi. 9, 11; 
for this in the parallels we have é¢y@vs); the asyndeton Néyet avrois, adré 
with and without an expressed subject, B 3 (twice), 6, 10, 12, 15, 16 (3 times), 
17 (twice), 22 (very frequently in John alone, sometimes in Matt. See 
vol. ii. 591, note 7); also Aéyee odv, B 5, 7 (A vii. 6, xii. 4); further, in 
general a more abundant use of ody (B, 8 or 9 times in the whole of Mark, 
certainly not more than 7 times ; on the other hand, in A oftener than in Matt., 
Mark, Luke, and Acts together). dynv, aunv, B 18 (elsewhere only A) ; inter- 
change between dyaray and dudciv, B 15-17 (cf. A xix. 26 with xx. 2). Com- 
pare the entire sentence B 19 with A xii. 33; further, rodro 78y rpirov, B 14, 
and mdduy devrepov, B 16, with A iv. 54; ws ard mnx@v dtaxocioy, B 8, with A xi. 
18; also B 4b with xx. 14. Also in B as in A, Jesus is designated regularly 
by His personal name (13 or 14 times), and within the narrative, merely in 
view of a former remark of the disciples and from their standpoint, by 
6 kvpuos (xxi. 12; ef. ver.7). The latter occurs in A only in iv. 1(?), vi. 28, xi. 
2, and in xx. 18, 20, just as in xxi. 12. Cf., on the other hand, Mark xvi. 19 
and vol. ii. 476. Further, “Simon Peter” is given in B 5 times, in A 12 
times ; as “Son of John” only in B 15-17 and A i. 43; Thomas called Didy- 
mus B 2, otherwise only A xi. 16, xx. 24. Only in B 2 and A i. 46ff. is 
Nathanael mentioned ; but here for the first time—that which helps us to 
understand the connection of ii. 1 with i. 46 ff.—his origin from Cana is stated, 
and in a form which, both because of the superfluous addition ris TaduAalas 
(cf. ii. 1, iv. 46) and in view of the dmé (i. 45, 46, xi. 1, x1. 21, xix. 38, other- 
wise only in Matt. xxvii. 57; Mark xv. 43; Luke xxiii. 51), is genuinely 
Johannine. The zaidia used once in address in B 5 (cf. 1 John ii. 14, 18) with 
the once used rexvia, A xiii. 33, is of no consequence ; but the dpviov, B 15 (Rev. 
29 times instead of duvds, A i. 29), and mpoBarvov, B 16, 17, instead of rpdBarorv 
(A x. 1-28), are full of significance. The interchange between lamb and sheep, 
however, is plainly only an interchange, just as that between dyamay and 
dureiv, and the diminutive forms have reference to the need of protection and 
care of the flock which is given into the charge of the shepherd. For the use 
of of ddegot, B 23,—instead of which of waOyrai (thus Ss) would have been 
misleading, since the latter would have been understood of the apostles while 
the former designates the members of the Church,—there would have been 
absolutely no opportunity in A, except perhaps in the prologue, where there 
was, however, no urgent need of it. Naturally xx. 17 is no parallel. 1 John 
iii. 14, 16; 3 John 3, 5, 10, however, offer good comparison. The mpaias 
ywopévns or yevouévns, xxi. 4 (cf. Matt. xxvii. 1), would have been out of place 
in xviii. 28, xx. 1, because the previous context does not inform us that some- 


250 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thing had happened in the night before. But from the point of view of style, 
owia eyévero, Vi. 16, is quite similar. 

2. (Pp. 234, 289.) To the testimony of all the Greek MSS. and of all the old 
versions (also Ss, though Sc. is defective), is to be added the above mentioned 
statement of Papias, pp. 178, 196, n. 4, which is intelligible only if the Fourth 
Gospel was already supplied with the supplement, which through ver. 24 
could make it appear as if not John himself, but others after his death, had 
published the Gospel. It is also noteworthy that Tatian in the Diatessaron 
has worked up the substantial contents of chap. xxi. (Forsch. i. 218), and that, 
following the combined testimony of the Arabic and of the Latin Dzatessaron, 
he concluded his work with John xxi. 25 as he began it with Johni. 1 (GK, 
ii. 554). What is said above on p. 234 of the whole chapter holds also of 
ver. 25, which Tischendorf has excluded from the text. The former opinion 
that this verse is wanting in Codex 63 at Dublin, which formerly belonged to 
Usher, has been refuted by Scrivener, more thoroughly by Gwynn (Herma- 
thena, vol. viii. No. 19, 1893, pp. 1-7). The latter has shown in the same 
article, pp. 7-17, on what a weak foundation Tischendorf’s opinion rests, that 
ver. 25 and the signature of the book in 8 were not written by the first hand, 
but by the hand of the contemporary corrector. In fact, Tregelles, who 
had seen the Dublin codex, opposed Tischendorf’s view, while the spelling 
xara "Iadvyny instead of "Iadvny, which is peculiar to the corrector (X= ), is 
decisive. There is, therefore, no manuscript evidence against ver. 25. A 
scholiast also, who explains it as a marginal note which had gradually worked 
into the text (in Wettstein N.7. i. 964, and Matthaei, Hv. Jo. p.354. Accord- 
ing to the Cod. Vatic. Regin. 9, fol. 197, in Mai, N. patr. dibl. vii. 1. 407, this 
was Theodore of Mops.), bears witness that ver. 25 is found in all MSS. But 
if the case were otherwise, every critic would have to hold that the simple 
hyperbole of the expression had induced pedantic writers toexpurgateit. As 
Tatian in the Diatessaron, so also the probably still somewhat older Acts of 
Peter have taken ver. 25 into account ; for if the 4 éyapjoapuev eypdyapuev to 
which Peter there gives expression (ed. Lipsius, p. 67, 2: preserved in the 
Greek by Isidorus of Pelusium ; cf. GK, ii. 848 A. 2, 849 A. 2, 851) both in 
the name of the other apostles and especially of the sons of Zebedee, is based 
primarily upon 1 John i. 1-4, still the expression éeywpjcapey which is not 
found in the Epistle passage, and which in the Acts of Peter is at once taken 
up again in ywpyrixas (capaciier), proves that there is reference at the same 
time to John xxi. 25. Origen (in Jo. tom. xiii. 5f., xix. 10, xx. 34; ef. Hus. 
H. E. vi. 25) and Isidorus, who through Jewish polemic against John xxi, 25 
had his attention called to the passage of the Acts of Peter, and also Bengel, all 
understood ywpjoa to concern the intellectual comprehension. Leucius both in 
the Acts of John and the Acts of Peter had already given a similar interpretation, 
only that at the same time he connects it with the uncertainty and incom- 
pleteness of the sense perception of Jesus’ being which was conditioned by the 
mutability of His bodily appearance. That Theodore of Mops. pronounced 
ver. 24, or ver. 25, or the entire chapter as spurious, is pure myth. Where 
Mill (N.T. 1707, Proleg. p. xxix) obtained his note in regard to Theodore 
which Eberhart, S. 8, so remarkably misinterpreted, the present writer has no 
knowledge. According to the Syrian Ischodad, circa 850 (cod. Sachau, 311 fol. 
163 ; cf. Goussen, Stwd. theol, i. p. 111), Theodore would have eliminated John 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 251 


y. 4and xxi. 25 from the text. Barhebreeus (in Ev. Jo., ed. Schwartz, p. 24) 
repeats this statement, but refers this opinion to people generally (faciv 
rives) instead of to Theodore. According to the Syriac translation of Theodore’s 
commentary on John, with whose conclusion Prof. L. Abel acquainted the 
present writer by a copy of the Cod. Sachau, 217 fol. 280%, at Berlin, Theodore 
~ adds to the text of xxi. 24 and 25 given in full by him nothing further 
than this: “These are sentences (xoinp) which are not from John, but 
(belong) to someone else. And here we conclude the seventh book, with 
which this writing (that of the commentary on John) ended and was com- 
pleted.” It follows from this that Theodore did not at all dispute the 
Johannine authorship of xxi. 1-23, but merely, as a good exegete, had con- 
cluded from the plural ofSayey that ver. 24 and with it ver. 25 were not 
written by the hand of John himself, but by that of some unknown person. 
In the Cod. Syr. 308 at Paris, upon which the printed edition is dependent 
(Theodorus Mops., Comment. in Hv. Jo. versio syr., ed. Chabot, Paris 1897), the 
concluding sentence (p. 412) runs literally as follows: “ But these sentences 
from gor O€ kai onwards, and up to this point, the Commentator says, are not 
by John, but by another, whoever that may be.” The writer of this MS, 
forgets his rdle when he speaks of Theodore, who by the Syrians bears the 
honorary title of “the commentator ” as of another person, probably in order 
to entirely remove from himself the responsibility of this critical remark. 
At the same time, however, he confines the criticism expressly to ver. 25; 
while Theodore, according to the original text of the Berlin MS., wished to 
have it referred to vv. 24 and 25. The texts for vv. 24-25, which have come . 
down to us, show no greater fluctuations than other undoubtedly original pas- 
sages. A xai before paprupér (B, Orig. in Jo. xxxii. 13, ed. Preuschen, p. 461. 9, 
and Cyril) might be genuine, and it might be correlative with the following 
cal, which Origen, however, discards, Only in that case we could not read 6 
before the second cai (x2 Cyril, etc.) or after it (BD). Probably, however, B, 
which has in part Origen and in part D and good Latin witnesses on its side, 
has the original wording: 6 cal paprupay m. tr. kai 6 ypdas ratra. From Ss 
(“who bore witness of this and wrote this”) we cannot infer a reading 
puvotupnoas. Just as little critical value has the free translation of Ss in ver. 
25 (“and many other [things] Jesus did, which, if they were written down 
one by one, the world would not be enough [have been big enough] for 
them”). It gives evidence of the tendency to displace the real and tangible 
conception, which has been vouched for by 7a ypapdéueva BiBXia by the inter- 
pretation which has been shown to be very early. The only doubt can be 
whether we are to read the hard éa, but which just on that account demands 
especial notice, instead of d@ before é¢moinoev, and whether xwpyoew or 
xepioae is the correct reading. 

3. (P. 235.) Inasmuch as of those who in xxi. 24 testify to the writing 
of the book by the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who witness to his truth- 
fulness, only one actually penned the statement, the change from oidapev to 
the singular oiua cannot appear strange, especially since the latter expression, 
like ofa, ov ot’ darws, opinor, and’other similar ones, had come to be almost an 
interjection. The whole circle of those in whose name the writer of these lines 
speaks, guarantees the testimony of ver. 24 ; but to make all of them responsible 
for the very subjective judgment contained in ver. 25 would be unnatural. 


252 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


4. (Pp. 240, 241.) The symbolical meaning of the draught of fishes, which 
at the same time was full of a promise of blessing, could not have remained 
secret to such readers as knew the traditions in Matt. iv. 19, xiii. 47; Mark 
i. 17; Luke v. 10, and, least of all to Peter, if in this passage as in the others 
actual words and deeds of Jesus have been reported. The disciple John, who 
had been an eye-witness of Peter’s former draught of fishes, recognised the 
Lord by this one (ver. 7). On the other hand, the number 153 (ver. 11) as 
well as the number 200 (ver. 8) and the numbers in i. 39, li. 6, 20, iv. 6, 18, 
v. 2, vi. 7, 9, 19, xi. 18, xii. 5 elude every reasonable allegorical or cabalistic 
signification, in spite of the frequent attempts which have been made in this 
direction, ¢.g., by Theophilus, Latin version, Forsch. ii. 84= Augustine, Tract. 
exxil. in Jo.; by Ammonius (Cramer's Catena, ii. 408); Severnus Antioch. 
(Cat. in Jo., ed. Corderius, p. 438); Jerome, ad Hzk. xlvii. 12 (Vall. v. 595), 
with appeal to the ddcevrixa of the poet Oppianus: CLIIT. esse genera pisciwm, 
which Hilgenfeld, Hinl. 717, further applies to the men who are to be won 
from the heathen peoples, as if John had said anything about the different 
kinds of fishes, or could have represented Peter as primarily the apostle to 
the heathen. Volkmar, Mose Prophetie, S. 62, found that the name Simon 
Bar Jona Kepha, written in Hebrew (x53, however, instead of x53) and 
resolved into its value in figures, yields 153. The only unfortunate thing is 
that the author of John xxi. 15-17 as well as of i. 42 does not call the father 
of Peter Jona, but Jochanan. The symbolic meaning of the draught of fishes 
in Matt. iv. 19; Mark i. 17 is connected with Peter and Andrew, in Luke 
v. 10 with Peter alone. In xxi.6 the command falls upon the seven disciples 
of ver. 2 (cf., however, also Luke v. 4, yaddoare, with éravdyaye, and v. 5, 
xardow), but Peter occupies the entire foreground in xxi. 3, 7, 11, so that 
the predictive meaning of the incident concerns him primarily. Moreover, 
according to Matt. xvi. 17-19 (of which the reader of the Fourth Gospel is 
reminded by i. 42); Luke xxii. 32; John x. 9 (where men are introduced, 
who through the interposition of Jesus receive the office of shepherd in the 
Church), the allegorical meaning of the three times repeated injunction of 
vy. 15-17 could not be any more doubtful for Peter than for us. More in 
agreement with the command in ver. 6 than with that in vv. 15-17 is that 
in ver. 19, so far as it refers to a definite outward act, which immediately is 
to and actually does ensue. But the deeper predictive meaning is excluded 
thereby as little here as in ver. 6. As surely as Peter must have been re- 
minded by the thrice asked question vv. 15-17 of his thrice uttered denial 
(xiii. 38, xviii. 17, 25, 27), so certainly must the dkodovder por have called to 
his mind the conversation of xiii. 36 f.—especially after the prophecy in 
ver. 18 had pointed out to him his future life up to old age. Furthermore, 
the reader, to whom the narrator in ver. 19a had explained this prophecy as 
relating to the death of Peter, could have understood the dxodovdet wor, with- 
out detracting from its most probable and proper meaning, as referring to 
nothing else than to Peter’s following into death and the invisible world. 
It is evident from ver. 20f., however, that Peter himself at once grasped this 
meaning more or less clearly. Whether in connection with it a recollection 
of the prophecy in Matt. xx. 23, Mark x. 39 assisted him, cannot with cer- 
tainty be determined. Only when in his following of Jesus, which was the 
point in question here, he recognised a symbolic expression of that following 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 253 


of which Jesus in xiii. 36f. had spoken, namely, an accompanying and fol- 
lowing of Him into the other world, through which for him the time of the 
painful separation from Jesus was shortened, only then could he perceive in 
this a privilege and an honour, a share in which he could wish to have given 
also to his fellow-disciple John who stood so close to Jesus. For no proof is 
needed that this is the meaning of Peter’s question as to John in ver. 2], 
and that Peter in the following of Jesus, which he had before desired, but 
which was now proffered him, and at the same time foretold of him, saw no 
punishment, that in his jealousy for his rival he wished him to share. Ina 
Gospel which contains words such as xii. 26, xiii. 36-xiv. 6, xvi. 16-22, and 
in a period of the history of Christianity in which words such as Phil. i. 
20-23; Rev. xiv. 13; Ign. Rom. ii.—vii., were written, the latter meaning 
would have been a blasphemy and an absurdity beyond all comprehension. 
The second draught of fishes, as the first, had led Peter to the most humble 
self-abasement (cf. Luke v. 8); and whatever remnants of a false ambition 
might have been present in him, must have been entirely stifled, at least for 
the moment, by this conversation of vv. 15-17, which put him again in his 
place as leader, and yet at the same time painfully reminded him of his 
weakness (ver. 15, rAéov rovrwy ; ver. 17, édkum7On), and also by the prophecy 
of ver. 18, which was not lacking in censure. The interpretation of ver. 18 
in the light of ver. 19a is similar, not only in form but also in substance, to 
xii. 38. As that word concerning the lifting up from the earth (xii. 32) by 
its context expresses first of all the thought of the removal from the earth 
to heaven (xii. 23, 34-36, ili. 14, vi. 62, viii, 21-28), and was only recognised 
after the crucifixion of Jesus as a predictive indication of this definite kind 
of death in which the one about to die is raised from the earth (xii. 33, 
XViiii. 32), so xxi. 18 gave Peter, and, as long as Peter lived, the reader no 
definite information concerning the apostle’s death, while it was only through 
combination of ideas that Peter himself came to base upon this statement, 
among other things, the expectation of a violent death (vol. ii. 211f.). Inas- 
much as he remained active in the service of the truth until his old age, he, 
as Paul in Phil. i. 20, ii. 17, 2 Tim. iv. 6, must have connected with this the 
hope that his violent death would be a martyrdom, and so redound to the 
glory of God. But John xxi. 19 goes beyond that; for woim @avdre here, 
as in xii. 33, xvill. 32, points to a definite kind of death, in fact, here as there 
to the same kind of death—the crucifixion ; for even if we did not possess 
historical information concerning the crucifixion of Peter, we would not be 
able to think of anything but the crucifixion, if any hint of a definite kind 
of death is given in ver. 18. The point of comparison lies in the stretching 
out of the hands, the extending of the arms; cf. Epict. Diss. iii. 26. 21 (in 
the address to the man who feared to become poor): Sédoccas py od oxRs .. . 
fXov rov brodnoovra, GAdov tov évdvcovta, dddous rods rpiovras, ddous 
rovs dkodvOnoovtas, wv” ev To Badaveim exdvoduevos Kal exreivas ceavTov 
&s of €oravpwpévor TpiBy evOev xa évOey; with reference to Artemi- 
doras, Interpretation of Dreams (Ovetpoxpirixa), i. 76, see Horn, 8. 93. 

5. (P. 246.) Itis instructive to note the comparison of the martyrdom 
of the sons of Zebedee,—a prophecy not given even in hypothetical form 
(Mark x. 38 f. ; Matt. xx. 22 f.),—and the attempt to bring it into agreement 
with the biography of John (cf. above, p. 205, and Acta Jo. 199. 20-200. 5, 


254 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


201. 4, 207. 2, 237.27; Act. Ap. Apocr., ed. Lipsius et Bonnet, ii. part 1. 
156. 13 ff.) ; and above, p. 195 f. 

6. (P. 248.) Iren. iii. 1.1; see the text, vol. ii. 398, n. 7. If the expres- 
sion used of John (kai airos é&éSaxe 7d evayyé\vov)—as distinguished from 
that previously said of Luke, and more plainly than the expressions used of 
Matt. and Mark—itself asserts not only the writing, but the formal publica- 
tion of the Gospel by John, so does the context completely prove that 
Ireneus had no thought of a merely indirect Johannine origin of the Gospel. 
According to Irenzeus, the fourfold Gospel originated with apostles—the second 
and third with Peter and Paul through the agency of Mark and Luke, the first 
and fourth direct with Matthew and John. Moreover, the legend which tells 
of certain assistance of others in the writing of the Fourth Gospel, neverthe- 
less emphasises the fact that John himself wrote the whole book (Can. Murat. 
line 13ff., ‘“Revelatum Andres ex apostolis, ut recognoscentibus cunctis 
Joannes suo nomine cuncta describeret ”). 


§ 67. THE RELATION OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL TO 
THE EARLIER GOSPELS. 


The view that the Fourth Gospel was written for a 
Christian church, or for a group of such churches, which 
cannot be said in any way of Matthew and Luke, and only 
with limitations of Mark, is corroborated by the observa- 
tion forced upon us as soon as we read the Gospel, that 
John takes for granted a considerable degree of acquaint- 
ance with the gospel history on the part of his readers. 
The question arises whether this knowledge was derived 
from the unwritten Gospel which they heard from their 
missionaries (§ 48), or from books in circulation among 
them. The tradition makes John write his Gospel in his 
old age, and later than Matthew, Mark, and Luke (above, 
p. 178 f.), and for this very reason favours the latter sup- 
position. We have also the account of the teachers of 
Clement of Alexandria, that John wrote with the three 
older Gospels consciously in view and with the purpose of 
supplementing the same on the theological side (above, p. 
197, n. 5). Moreover, it has been shown that Mark’s 
Gospel was the subject of earnest discussion among the 
friends of John at Ephesus (vol. i. 488 ff.), and that in 
the same region the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 255 


interpreted orally in the church services for a long time, 
until the translating of the Gospel into Greek rendered 
this unnecessary (vol. i. 510 ff). There is no certain 
starting-point in the tradition for the determination of the 
chronological relation between these facts and the com- 
position of the Fourth Gospel. It is possible, however, 
that our Gospel of Mark was much read in Ephesus, that 
the Aramaic Gospel of Matthew was interpreted orally 
there, and that even the Greek translation of it had been 
made prior to the time when John wrote. In fact, Luke’s 
work may have been known in Ephesus at this time 
(above, p. 159). Since, moreover, the preceding investi- 
gation has not confirmed any of the conjectures concern- 
ing lost documents which Matthew and Mark made the 
basis of their works, and since, with the exception of 
Mark, there is no trace of the wider circulation of the 
older attempts to produce a gospel history with which 
Luke became acquainted in the course of his investiga- 
tions, we infer that our Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke are the writings from which John’s readers may have 
derived the knowledge of the gospel history which he 
takes for granted they possessed (n. 1). 

No one of the Gospels shows from the outset so clearly 
as does the Fourth Gospel the lack of any attempt to 
furnish readers who may not be:as yet familiar with the 
subject a history which could be understood out of its own 
material. Without any introductory words acquainting 
the readers with the person and work of John the Baptist 
(n. 2), the Gospel begins (i. 19), in striking contrast to the 
other Gospels, with an account of an official embassy from 
the Jews of Jerusalem, which presupposes that John had 
been carrying on an important work for a considerable 
time ; as a matter of fact, we learn incidentally (i. 25, 26) 
that he had been engaged in baptizing with water. 

Whence John obtained that knowledge of the person 
of the Messiah—who had already made His public appear- 


256 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ance—which he shows in reply to a question put to him 
at the time by the Pharisees (n. 2), the reader first learns 
from the following narrative, in which John applies to 
Jesus as He was approaching him, a testimony spoken 
earlier concerning Him, while still absent, and explains 
(i. 29-84) from a definite experience his knowledge of the 
high dignity of Jesus, which had already been attested 
by the earlier testimony and at the time it was given. 
Even if there were no thoroughly characteristic words 
recalling the account of the baptism in Matt. ui. 13 ff; 
Mark i. 9 ff.; Luke ii. 21 f., every reader would under- 
stand from the way in which John twice recalls the fact, 
that his mission was to baptize with water (vv. 31, 33),— 
which otherwise would be without point in this connection, 
—that John as he concluded the act of Jesus’ baptism 
had seen the sign which God had revealed to him as the 
sion of Him who should baptize with the Spirit, namely, 
the visible descent of the Spirit from Heaven, in the form 
of a dove which rested upon Jesus. From these statements 
of John we conclude that his baptism of Jesus preceded 
not only the scene recorded in vv. 29-34, but also the 
testimony in ver. 26f., and the still earlier testimony to 
be distinguished from that of ver. 26, to which the Baptist 
refers in ver. 30. After His baptism, which took place 
some time prior to the events recorded in i. 19 ff., Jesus 
came again to Bethany where John was baptizing, before 
His return to Galilee (i. 43), which continued to be His 
home (i, 45) notwithstanding His presence in Judea. 
Anyone familiar with Matt. iv. 13-17; Mark i. 9~11, 
or Luke ii, 21-22, iv. 1-14, recognizes at once that this 
interval between Jesus’ baptism and His return to the 
Jordan was the forty days of His temptation. Without 
acquaintance not only with the general outlines, but also 
with numerous details of the synoptic accounts of the 
work of the Baptist and of the baptism of Jesus, the 
entire narrative in John i, 19-34 is unintelligible (n. 8). 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 267 


It is consequently inconceivable that the author should 
have written in this way without consciously taking it 
for granted and without being certain that his readers: 
were in the possession of such knowledge. 

This appears in a particularly striking manner in iii. 
24. No intelligent writer could communicate in this form 
to readers, who did not as yet know that the work of the 
Baptist was brought to an end by imprisonment, a fact of 
which he relates nothing either in what precedes or in 
what follows (cf. per contra, Matt. iv. 12, xi. 2, xiv. 3; 
Mark i. 14, vi. 17 ; particularly, however, what is said by 
Luke, who is a real historian, Luke i. 19f., vii. 18). 
Nor would mere acquaintance with the fact on the part of 
the readers be sufficient to render the sentence intelligible. 
For, since it is impossible that a man could not be engaged 
in a public work of baptism and preaching and surrounded 
by his disciples, as indicated in ii. 25 and iil. 25-iv. 1, 
and be suffering at the same time the imprisonment from 
which he was never to be released, it is self-evident that 
this statement was not made on John’s account. Least of 
all could it be intended to explain the statement about his 
continued public work. The remark is intelligible only if 
John presupposed on the part of his readers a clear idea 
of the relation between Jesus’ public work and John’s 
imprisonment—a relation with which his account did not 
seem to harmonise. Although such a conception was not 
required by Luke’s account (above, p. 106f, 167 f.), it 
was an inevitable inference from Mark i. 14 and Matt. 
iv. 12; since both of these evangelists make all of Jesus’ 
public work, which they describe, follow the arrest of the 
Baptist. Christians who had a definite idea of the course 
of the gospel history which they had derived from Mark 
or Matthew could read John i. 19-11. 21 with the feeling 
that here were important facts of which they had known 
nothing heretofore. When, however,.they came to iii. 
22-iv. 2, which contained an account of the contempor- 

VOL, III. 389 / 


NS 


258 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


aneous activity of Jesus and of the Baptist, the new 
account may have, indeed it must have, seemed to contra- 
dict their familiar conception of the course of the history. 
The statement in ui. 24 was intended for the information 
of such readers, possibly also designed to offset their 
wrong impression. ‘The writer says to them in effect: 
“You must understand that what is here related took 
place before the imprisonment of the Baptist ; it was not 
until after this event that Jesus began the work with 
which you are familiar, which was then confined chiefly to 
Galilee.” This remark, which is intended for the infor- 
mation of his readers, is inserted at this particular point 
where it is necessary, in order to make the narrative clear 
to those acquainted with Mark and Matthew ; it is, how- 
ever, related to the entire contents of i. 19-iv. 54, for 
Jesus breaks off the work which He had begun and with- 
draws from Judea to Galilee, in order not to interfere 
with the Baptist’s work so long as God permits it to be 
carried on, and in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry 
with His Forerunner (iii. 25-iv. 3). It would never occur 
to readers such as John had in mind—readers familiar with 
the synoptic tradition, and others of common intelligence 
—to identify this journey of Jesus from Judea to Galilee, 
which was undertaken because of the continuance of the 
work of the Baptist, with the journey from Judea to 
Galilee which Jesus made after the arrest of John (Matt. 
iv. 12; Marki. 14). This unlikely combination of events 
was made altogether impossible by the fact that, according 
to the synoptic accounts, this journey marked the begin- 
ning of a prophetic work on the part of Jesus which 
moved the whole of Galilee, whereas in John there is 
nothing to indicate that Jesus resumed in Galilee the 
work which He had broken off in Judea.- Nothing is 
recorded in iv. 43-54 concerning teaching and baptism on 
the part of Jesus, and nothing is said of His activity as a 
miraculous healer. Only a single act of healing is re- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 259 


corded, which was wrung from Jesus against His will (iv. 
48); and in this instance the parallelism between this 
miracle and that in Cana (iv. 46, 54) is twice pointed out, 
showing it to have been a revelation of Jesus’ glory which 
was just as isolated and just as premature as was the 
latter event (ii. 4), and just as much an exception to the 
rule which Jesus observed at this time of refraining from 
public work. It is just here, in connection with this stay 
in Galilee, that John represents Jesus as formally estab- 
lishing this rule, for he gives as the motive of this journey 
to Galilee a saying of Jesus—when spoken need not be 
considered here—from which no exegetical sophistry can 
derive any other meaning than this, namely, that Jesus 
went to Galilee at this time because He was convinced— 
and as occasion demanded, expressed the conviction—that 
in His native Galilee He was less likely to receive such 
recognition as He had received in Judea and even in 
Samaria, as He passed through it on His hasty journey to 
Galilee (n. 3). It was not His intention, therefore, to 
change the scene of His labours from Judea to Galilee, 
which would not have relieved in any way the unfortunate 
state of affairs which had caused His withdrawal from 
Judea (iii. 26, iv. 1), but He designed to remain in retire- 
ment so long as it pleased God that the Baptist should 
remain at liberty and continue his work. When Jesus 
appears again in Jerusalem at a feast (v. 1), this period 
of waiting is at an end; because now He speaks of John 
as a light which was no longer burning and shining 
(v. 35). Readers, such as were presupposed in ili. 24, 
knew that when in the narrative Jesus appears again in 
Galilee after this visit to Jerusalem (vi. 1 ff.), the time is 
that following the arrest of the Baptist, to which period 
the older accounts were almost exclusively confined. And 
their expectation is confirmed by the very first incident 
which John records after this reappearance in Galilee (vi. 
3-13). Here they find a portion of the older tradition 


260 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


with which they were familiar (Matt. xiv. 13f; Mark vi. 
31 ff.; Luke ix. 10 ff.), and this is the first instance where 
John gives essentially the same account as was found in 
the Synoptiecs. 

Here there comes to light with great clearness the 
general presupposition on which the Fourth Gospel was 
based. The readers are introduced at once to the climax 
of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, of which not only is nothing 
said in what precedes, but for which, rather, there 
is no place before v. 1, and consequently no place 
before vi. 1. As the imperfects in vi. 2 indicate, on 
account of His numerous deeds of healing, Jesus is fol- 
lowed constantly in Galilee by great throngs. The en- 
thusiasm of the people is roused to a dangerous pitch 
(vi. 14f.). As we learn in a purely incidental way in vi. 
67-71, the twelve apostles have been for a long time 
already chosen. A harsh saying of Jesus brings about a 
crisis among the disciples less intimately attached to 
Him ; from this moment the movement, now at its cul- 
mination, begins to decline (vi. 6-66). The ebb con- 
tinues, so that half a year later (cf. vii. 2-9 with vi. 4) 
Jesus’ brothers, in view of the decrease of His popularity 
in Galilee, urge Him now at last to reveal Himself before 
the whole world in Judea, where it was alleged that He 
had won so many followers (vii. 3, ef. ii. 28, iii. 26, iv. 
1, 45). There is an interval of at least six months 
between v. 1 and vi. 4 (n. 4), and according to John’s 
account this period was occupied by a work which moved 
the whole of Galilee, or more specifically, by the whole 
series of events. which, according to Matt. iv. 12—xiv. 12; 
Mark i. 14—vi. 80; Luke iv. 14-1x. 10, took place in the 
interval between the arrest and the execution of the 
Baptist. Then follows another six months, from the 
Passover which, according to vi. 4, took place shortly 
after the events recorded in vi. 3-71 until the feast of 
Tabernacles in vii, 2, to which John gives only a single 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 261 


sentence, vii. 1. Nor was this six months a time of 
retirement, like the period beginning with iv. 43 (n. 3); 
for at its close Jesus’ brothers do not find fault with Him 
because He had begun His work on a large scale in Galilee 
and then given it up again, but because He did His works 
in Galilee instead of in Judea and Jerusalem. We have, 
therefore, at least one full year of important prophetic 
work in Galilee which John passes over in silence, with 
the exception of the one connected account in vi. 3-71 
and the general hints of vi. 2, vil. 1; although he not 
only betrays knowledge of the events which he passes 
over, but indicates their significance. There is no com- 
parison between this procedure and that of the Synoptists, 
who also sometimes mention single events about which 
they know, without giving a full account of them (Matt. 
xi. 21, xxiii. 87, above, p. 170ff.). John’s procedure at 
this point, where for the first time his narrative comes 
into touch with the great current of the synoptic account 
(vi. 1-vii. 2), can be explained only on the assumption 
that his readers were fully informed about all the events 
which took place during this great ‘‘ year of the Lord” in 
Galilee (Luke iv. 19, above, p. 169). Where, however, he 
does have occasion to bring before the readers again in 
full the account of a particular event which is recorded 
also in the older Gospels (vi. 3-13),—in order to add to it 
the account of other and new incidents and discourses, 
closely connected with the event (vi. 14 f, 23, 26-71), 
which he had to give, he shows again, as in the history of 
the relations between Jesus and the Baptist (above, p. 
256 f.), by the addition of various details which cannot be 
explained as due to the influence of a poetic or didactic 
idea, that he has at his command independent knowledge 
of the situation (n. 5). 

A new aspect of the relation between John and the 
Synoptists comes to view in John xi. 2, 3. Inasmuch as 
x. 40 refers back to i, 28, where Bethany (not Bethabara) 


262 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


on the east bank of the Jordan is mentioned as the place 
in which John began his baptism, it would not be at all 
unnatural, in the passage immediately following, where 
another Bethany near Jerusalem is referred to (xi. 1, 18), 
if in some way the latter place were distinguished from the 
former. The fact, however, that Bethany in Perea is not 
mentioned again by name in x. 40-42, renders such a 
geographical notice unnecessary. But even if it were, 
what a remarkable designation is that given in xi. 1. 
Instead of saying that the Bethany mentioned in this verse 
was situated near Jerusalem (ver. 18), John calls it “the 
village of Mary and her sister Martha.” It is not until 
ver. 2 that the reader learns that the two women are the 
sisters of Lazarus ; and even if it had been possible to infer 
this earlier, it must have impressed him as peculiar that 
the place which is mentioned as Lazarus’ home is described 
not by his name, but as the village of Mary and Martha. 
Neither designation, however, is suited to distinguish the 
geographical location of the one Bethany from that of the 
other. The passage is intelligible only if we assume that 
the readers were already acquainted with a “village of 
Mary and Martha.” In this case it would be of interest to 
them to learn, what they had not known before, that the 
Bethany where Lazarus lived and where he was now sick 
was the “village of the sisters Mary and Martha” of 
which they already knew. Manifestly the readers were in 
the same position in which we find ourselves to-day. 
From Luke x. 38-42 they knew, as do we, of a village in 
which two sisters, Mary and Martha, possessed a house ; 
but that this village was called Bethany, and that it was 
the same Bethany where also a certain Lazarus lived, they 
learned, as do we, for the first time when they read John 
xi. 1. Before, however, informing his readers concerning 
the relationship of Mary and Martha to Lazarus (ver. 2b), 
who up to this time has remained unknown to them (xi. 1, 
ris), the writer arouses further interest in the persons who 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 263 


appear in the narrative which follows, by indicating that 
Mary was the woman who had anointed the Lord with oil 
and wiped His feet with her hair. This incident was to 
be narrated with ample detail in its historical connection, 
xii. 1-8. But unless informed from other sources, the 
reader could not know this beforehand, and would neces- 
sarily understand xi. 2 incorrectly to mean that the 
anointing had taken place before the time of x1. 2, just as 
vil. 50, xviii. 14, 26, xix. 39 are to be taken as references to 
events which had happened and which are recorded earlier 
in the book, namely in ili. 2, xi. 50, xvii. 10. _ Here, how- 
ever, where, as xl. 1-8 shows, the narrator has no inten- 
tion of being so understood, he nevertheless refers to an 
anointing of Jesus with oil by a woman, just as though he — 
himself had narrated the incident earlier. He takes for 
granted, therefore, that his readers are familiar with the 
details of the incident from other sources, and the new 
thing which he relates is the fact that this woman is 
identical with the Mary who has just been mentioned. 
Consequently the readers must have known, as we do, 
either from Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, or from 
Luke vii. 836-50, the story of an anointing such as John 
took for granted they knew, 7.e. one in which the act was 
narrated without the name of the woman being given- 
But comparison with John xii. 1-8 shows that John had 
in mind Mark xiv. 3-9 = Matt. xxvi. 6-13, not Luke vii. 
36 ff.; and here again his account resembles that of Mark 
so closely, both in subject-matter and in language, that it is 
most natural to suppose that Mark was consciously made 
use of by John (n. 6). Here, as in the account of the 
feeding of the five thousand, John represents one disciple 
as saying what Matthew and Mark represent the disciples 
as saying collectively. Neither does he hesitate to report 
the most significant saying of Jesus in a form differing 
widely from that of the other accounts (ver. 7),—a form 
which, at a comparatively early date, seemed to pious 


264 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


readers objectionable, because, as John reported the saying, 
it had the appearance of being a prophecy which was not 
fulfilled (n. 6). 

Up to this point two things seem to have been estab- 
lished, or shown to be extremely probable. (1) John 
takes for granted on the part of his readers a comprehen- 
sive knowledge of the gospel history. This knowledge 
includes not only the main outlines of the Gospel and the 
facts of great religious importance which would necessarily 
be brought out in the mission preaching, but also many 
separate stories which sometimes may have been narrated 
orally, but which could not have been parts of a uniform 
tradition in general circulation. (4) He is not only him- 
self acquainted with the synoptic Gospels, especially with 
Mark, apparently also with Luke, but he presupposes this 
knowledge on the part of his readers. This is proved by 
the fact that throughout his Gospel he utilises the synoptic 
narratives, sometimes by connecting his own account 
directly with the same on the presupposition that they are 
known, sometimes by taking for granted that some event 
there recorded had happened which he does not repeat, 
sometimes by guarding the readers against possible mis- 
understanding of the synoptic accounts, or by informing 
them for the first time of details which had become effaced 
in these accounts, or by correcting slight inaccuracies 
which had crept into them. On the whole, however, the 
synoptic accounts are confirmed both by what John re- 
peats and by what he does not report but takes for granted 
as having happened and as being known. 

Assuming that these facts suffice to prove that John’s 
omission of material found in the Synoptics, which in itself 
is important, is no proof either that he was ignorant of 
the same or that he disapproved of it, we may pursue this 
line of inquiry still further. In passages like i. 19-34, iii. 
24, vi. 1-21, xi. 1f., xii. 1-8, the reader is reminded con- 
stantly of the synoptic accounts, and nowhere does he get 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 265 


a conception of events essentially different from that 
which he finds in the earlier Gospels. Just as in the case 
of the most important facts of the gospel history, as, for 
example, the whole of John’s baptismal work, Jesus’ bap- 
tism by him, the imprisonment of the Baptist, the healing 
of multitudes in Galilee, and the choice of the apostles, 
the reader finds his previous conception directly confirmed 
by the fact that John does not undertake to give a new 
and different account of these facts; so he discovers with 
regard to numerous other instances to which John less 
clearly refers. 

Without claiming anything at this point as to the 
purpose of the Fourth Gospel, we may call attention to 
the patent fact, which the author himself brings out very 


explicitly in xx. 30 (xxi. 25), that what he records is /~ 


selected from a mass of material at his disposal. In a 
degree unparalleled by any other evangelist, he abandons 
all attempt at completeness in the narrative in the 
history, and consequently disregards entirely an external 
pragmatic treatment of the history. In the case of the 
“vear of grace in Galilee” this is self-evident, and like- 
wise in the case of the beginnings of the history of Jesus. 
We have seen how the curiously chosen beginning of his 
narrative in i. 19 does not exclude the accounts in Matt. 
iii, 1-4, 11; Mark i. 2-13; Luke iu. 1-1v. 13, nor lessen 
their importance, but rather presupposes them (above, 
p. 256). Quite as little does this beginning exclude or 
disparage the accounts in Matt. i-i.; Luke i-i. Just 
before it is said that the Logos became flesh, who, because 
of the incarnation, is called the only-begotten Son of God 
(i. 14), it is stated (according to the text still accepted) 
very explicitly how those for whom Christ has won the 
right and possibility of becoming children of God, and 
who are now believers on the name of Christ, become 
children of God. If the reader were unacquainted with 
the traditions in Matt. i. and Luke i. possibly the fact 


266 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that the simple thought that we become children of God 
not by a natural, human birth, but by a working of God 
which may be figuratively described as begetting or birth 
(cf. iii. 3-8), is expressed by three negative and one 
simple positive statement, might excite only surprise, 
especially, however, that the will of the man as a factor 
in the begetting and birth of the child of God is excluded, 
whereas in natural birth the woman as well as the man 
is a factor, and besides the use of the plural aipdrwv, 
suggests the inclusion of both the man and the woman. 
On the other hand, for readers such as those whom John 
addressed—who belonged to the Christian Church and 
were familiar with the traditions of the beginning of 
Jesus’ life—the mystery was solved at once when it was 
observed that John described the birth of the children of 
God according to the analogy of the birth of the only- 
begotten Son of God, who is this in the fullest sense, and 
from His incarnation onwards. How inevitably Christian 
readers discovered in the passage reference to the beget- 
ting and birth of Jesus without the mingling of the blood 
of two human beings, and without the concurrence of 
fleshly desire and of the will of man, would be shown in 
the history of the text, if in ver. 13 o? . . . éyyevnOnoay 
were the original reading, from which in the second 
century the reading éyyevv7j6y, without a connecting 
relative (of or 6s), may have arisen and been widely 
spread abroad in the Churches. ‘There are, however, 
strong reasons for the originality of this latter reading. 
For John would then have expressly acknowledged the 
traditions in Matt. i. and Luke i, and all the more 
have presupposed readers who knew these traditions and 
believed them to be true (n. 7). 

After having put before his readers in’ i. 19-xi. 57 
material which, with the exception of vi. 1-13 and 
occasional references to what they knew from other 
sources, was entirely new in the account of the last days 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 267 


of Jesus’ life, John was under the necessity either of 
remaining silent altogether or of repeating what was 
already known from various sources ; for, like the earlier 
Gospels, the missionary preaching and all the oral 
traditions concerning these days must have contained 
a full account of everything connected with the death 
and resurrection of Jesus. Nevertheless, in this section 
also the author of the Fourth Gospel follows the same 
eclectic method, and makes no effort to conceal the fact. 
Here it was impossible for a reader of any intelligence at 
all to conclude from Johu’s silence regarding facts which 
were important in themselves, and which still survived in 
the tradition, either that the events had not taken place 
or that they were not accepted by John as true. From 
xii. 1, 12 the reader learns that a number of days inter- 
vened between the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem and 
His death; but only one event, xii. 20-36, which took 
place during these days, and one short discourse, xu. 44— 
50, the time and place of which is not even indicated, are 
recorded. It is also necessarily presupposed in xu. 35f. 
that Jesus did not in any way withdraw Himself from the 
people, but rather testified to them of Himself by His 
teaching and His deeds. After all the conflicts between 
Jesus and the Jewish authorities in Jerusalem, of which 
John especially gives us a full account from i. 18 on- 
wards, it must have been perfectly clear to everyone that 
collisions of this character could not be avoided during 
His last visit to the city. The fact that John passes all 
these events by in silence without even so much as such 
general remarks as are found in Luke xxi. 37f., which 
would give the readers an idea of Jesus’ life during these 
eventful days, of His place of residence, and of His works 
‘and. discourses, is to be explained only on the supposition 
that they were sufficiently informed regarding these 
particular facts (Mark xi. 12, xi. 37; Matt. xxi. 12- 
xxv. 46; Luke xix. 47-xxi. 38). In contrast to the 


V 


~N 


268 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


scanty account of this part of the history, we have de- 
tailed reports regarding the last hours which Jesus spent 
with the apostles (xiii. 1-xvu. 26). But this narrative 
would be quite unintelligible to readers unacquainted with 
at least the main features of the history of the last night 
of Jesus’ life. It is not until well on in the narrative 
that such readers would become aware that it was the last 
evening which He spent with them and the night before 
His arrest (xiii. 32, evs; xiii. 38, xiv. 25-31, xvi. 32, 
xviii. 1ff.). Without statement as to place or time 
(xiii. 1, n. 8), an account is given of what took place 
during a meal of which Jesus partook with His disciples. 
That Judas’ betrayal of Jesus, which is referred to at an 
earlier point in the narrative (vi. 64, 70f., xi. 4), and 
again in xiii. 2, 18-30 (xiv. 22), xvil. 12, as if it were 
already known, was the outcome of an arrangement with 
the authorities, is not indicated either here or anywhere 
else, not even in xvill. 2, where the progress of the 
narrative requires that it be presupposed. It must be 
taken for granted, therefore, that this fact was known. 

If, as all the tradition from 1 Cor. xi. 23 onwards 
affirms, Jesus instituted the Christian sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper on the occasion of His last meal (vol. ii. 


(3880, No. 7), the idea could occur to no Christian writer 
/ that, by passing by in silence this event, which was of 


such great importance in Christian worship, he could 
banish the same from the consciousness of the Church for 
which he wrote (above, p. 208 f.). And the later he wrote 
and the more deeply the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, 
which depended upon this act of Jesus, became ingrained 
into the custom of the Church with the lapse of time, the 
more impossible would it be for him to entertain such an 
idea. Ifthe writer had not taken it for granted that his 
readers were fully informed concerning this part of the 
history, he could not have passed this event by in silence, 
nor could he have written chaps. xili.—xvii. in their present 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 269 


form. The same is true of chaps. xviiii-xx. The omission 
of the account of Jesus’ struggle in prayer in Gethsemane 
and of Judas’ kiss in xviii. 1-11, and the introduction into 
the picture of a number of features which are not found 
in the Synoptics (the names of Peter and of Malchus, the 
co-operation of the Roman cohort, and the conversation 
between Jesus and those sent to arrest Him), are quite in 
keeping with what we have observed in sections previously 
discussed, which are formally parallel to accounts in the 
Synoptics. Here, however, is to be especially observed 
that John does not omit important facts which the 
parallelism between portions of his account and that of 
the Synoptics would naturally lead him to relate without 
elsewhere supplying a kind of substitute for them,—a fact 
which was found to be true also of Luke in relation to 
Mark (above, p. 102 f.). The essential contents of the 
story of the agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37-45; 
Mark xiv. 33-41; Luke xxii. 41-46; Heb. v. 7, vol. ii. 
362, 880), which John omits, are given in connection 
with an event recorded by him alone in xii. 27. There is 
no account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper; but 
in vi. 26-65 is found a discourse which the original 
readers could construe only as a prophecy fulfilled by the 
observance of the Supper in the Church, and which was 
actually so construed (n. 9). Peter’s great confession 
(Matt. xvi. 16; Mark vii. 29; Luke ix. 20) is replaced 
by another having the same significance, but different in 
form, and found in a different connection (John vi. 69). 
For the missing story of Jesus’ birth there is a brief but 
significant substitute in i. 13 f. (above, p. 265 f.), and in 
place of the account of His baptism, John offers i. 32-34. 
In all these instances John’s statements and narratives 
are independent. An author who, on the one hand, 
shows by such chapters as iii. 1—-v. 47, vil.—xi., xlil.—xvii. 
that he has a large amount of material at his disposal not 
used in any form by the Synoptists, and that he knew 


270 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


also how to arrange the same, and who, on the other 
hand, does not hesitate to repeat without essential 
modification what the Synoptists had written earlier 
(vi. 1-18, xii. 1-18, xviii. 1/f.), is above the suspicion 
of having produced these and other accounts (n. 10) with 
the help of his imagination and by recasting the material 
furnished him by the Synoptics. 

In the history of the Passion, repetition was unavoidable; 
but here also John writes with the same conscious reference 
to the Synoptics. Accepting the text of the older MSS., 
modifications of which are easy to understand and therefore 
to be rejected (n. 11), John in xviii. 13-28 distinguishes 
between a transaction in the house of Annas and a later 
hearing in the house of Caiaphas. The express statement 
that the former of these hearings took place first (xviii. 18, 
mpartov), and the omission of all account of the second hear- 
ing, with only the insertion of the account of Peter’s 
second and third denials between the notice of Jesus’ 
deliverance into Caiaphas’ hands by Annas (ver. 24) and 
His handing over to Pilate by Caiaphas (ver. 28), would be 
incomprehensible on the part of an author who was giving 
the history of these events without reference to other 
accounts with which the readers were familiar. For it is 
altogether self-evident that what is first recorded and 
what immediately follows the account of the arrest took 
place first ; and everyone understands that what took place 
in the house of Caiaphas, whose position as ruling high 
priest is strongly emphasised in vv. 13f., 24 as earlier in 
x1, 49-51, must have been more important than the hear- 
ing before Annas, to whom John ascribes no official 
position whatever, and whose participation in the trial he 
explains merely on the ground of his relationship to the 
high priest (ver. 13). When, nevertheless, John expressly 
affirms that the hearing before Annas took place first, and 
then passes by without a word the latter event, concerning 
which he had aroused their attention in ver. 24, it can only 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 271 


be because he wrote with other accounts in view which 
seemed to make the first statement necessary and allowed 
him to pass the other by. Mark xiv. 53-65 and xv. 1 and 
Matt. xxvi. 57-68, xxvii. 1, agree in distinguishing be- 
tween what took place during the night in the dwelling of 
the high priest and a session of the Sanhedrin held in the 
early morning ; and both Gospels place the decisive hearing 
and the death sentence of Jesus in the night assembly. 
Matthew differs from Mark only in calling the high priest, 
before whom the hearing by night took place, Caiaphas, 
and in stating (xxvii. 1) that the decision in regard to the 
execution of Jesus was made at the morning sitting. 
There is no reference to this in Mark xv. 1. Luke is 
similar to Matthew in this latter variation. He makes no 
mention whatever in xxi. 54 ff. of a hearing by night be- 
fore the Sanhedrin, and, on the other hand, places the 
decisive hearing in the official session of the Sanhedrin, 
which was held in the morning (xxii. 66-70). It is evi- 
dent that the tradition was uncertain with regard to the 
different steps of Jesus’ trial. It was the special mission 
of the disciple who was known in the household and the 
court of the high priest, and who, therefore, was not com- 
pelled like Peter to remain without in the court, but could 
enter the inner rooms of the house which were used for 
the trial, to make this clear. Since John says only that 
Peter remained in the court, he himself must actually have 
gone within, and so have gained a more exact idea of the 
course of events than was possible for Peter, especially since 
the latter was very much occupied with his own affairs and 
became confused (n.11). Consequently, whether the disciple 
in xviii. 15-16 was John himself or his brother James (above, 
p. 216), John was able to correct the error, which is expressed 
in so many words only by Matthew, but which was probably 
shared also by Mark and Luke, namely, that Jesus was led 
at once upon His arrest to Caiaphas. Not to Caiaphas, 
says John, but before and first to Annas (ver. 13). With 


272 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


this error which John thus corrects was connected another, 
expressed by Matthew and Mark, but corrected by Luke, 
namely, that witnesses were examined at the hearing held 
during the night, and the sentence of death passed as if it 
were a regular court. Here John agrees with Luke, since 
what he relates about the transaction in the house of Annas 
is only a preliminary hearing of Jesus ; there is no decision, 
and the whole lacks the character of a judicial procedure 
in which a case is pressed to an issue. But such a trial 
was the necessary presupposition of the appearance of the 
members of the Sanhedrin before Pilate (John xviii. 30, 
xix. 7; Matt. xx. 18; Mark x. 33; Acts xiii. 27). This 
was not held at night before Annas, but in the early 
morning before Caiaphas. John is aware of this, and 
notices also the transference of Jesus to Caiaphas (vv. 24, 
28), but omits an account of what took place during this 
trial, because in the nature of the case neither he nor his 
brother was present at the meeting of the Sanhedrin, and 
consequently he had nothing to add to what the readers 
already knew from Mark or Luke or Matthew, or from all 
three of the synoptic Gospels. While in this instance 
John clearly shows himself acquainted with the older 
tradition and reveals his definite purpose to arrange his 
own account with reference to the earlier synoptic narra- 
tives, the reference of mdéAw in xviii. 40 to previous 
participation of the crowd in the trial by loud cries, of 
which, however, nothing is said in John, may be uninten- 
tional. But it is evidently an echo of Mark xv. 8, 11, 13. 
In general, it may be said that the sudden appearance of 
Barabbas in John’s narrative is to be explained only on the 
supposition that the story was familiar to the readers, but 
could not well be passed over by John in silence. This is 
true also of xx. 2, although in the previous verses we read 
only that Mary Magdalene came to the grave and saw that 
the stone was rolled away ; nevertheless, when she comes to 
Peter and John she says to them that someone has taken 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 273 


the Lord’s body out of the grave, which no one could know 
without having convinced himself that the tomb was 
empty. Moreover, in declaring her uncertainty as to the 
place where the body has been laid, she does not use ov« 
oiéa, as in ver. 13, but ov« olSauev. It is thus presupposed 
that others besides her had had essentially the same experi- 
ence, and had discussed with her the question as to where 
the body had been removed. But the others must have 
seen more than she did, «.e. they must have inspected the 
tomb and have found it empty. In short, while on the 
one hand John’s account presupposes the narrative in 
Mark xvi. 1-5 (Matt. xxviii. 1. 5-6; Luke xxiv. 1-10), on 
the other hand it differs from this account, in which the 
distinctions had become obliterated, by indicating that 
Mary Magdalene came only as far as the grave, but did 
not enter it. In the meanwhile, however, she had spoken 
with the other women who had gone into the grave. The 
lack of skilful historical narrative in John which we notice 
here and elsewhere is more than offset by the evidence of 
his dependence upon the synoptic narrative, especially 
upon Mark. Indeed, this lack of skill is the very means 
by which dependence upon the Synoptics is brought clearly 
to light. 

It is from this point of view that an answer is to be 
given to the much debated question as to how John’s idea 
of the chronology of the Passion history, 2.e., of the time 
relation of the last meal and the crucifixion to the Jewish 
feast of the Passover of that year, is related to that of the 
Synoptists. This was one of the main questions at issue 
at the time of the disputes about the proper date for the 
celebration of the Christian Passover which arose between 
165 and 170 in the Churches of Asia Minor, and which 
after 190 were continued between the Churches of Rome 
and Ephesus (n. 12). With only rare exceptions, such as 
Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis (about 170),the Churches 
and bishops of the province of Asia had at the time of 


VOL, III. 18 


274 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


these disputes been for a long time Quartodecimans (reoca- 
peoxaidexatiras), and they continued to remain such during 
the third century, 2.e., they observed the Christian Pass- 
ver, which consisted of a special celebration of the 
| Bnchasis after a fast, on the day and at the hour of the 
Jewish Passover meal on the evening of the 14th of Nisan. 
In support of this practice they appealed to the example 
of the great saints of the Church of their province, the 
apostle John of Ephesus, Philip of Hierapolis, and also the 
bishops and martyrs of the post-apostolic age. They 
appealed also to “the Gospel,” particularly to Matthew, 
according to which Christ on the evening before His death 
observed the Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the 
law. z.e., the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and on this 
occasion instituted and celebrated the Christian Passover 
or Eucharist. Inasmuch as they claimed to have the 
authority of ‘‘the Gospel,” 2.e. the four Gospels, and in 
general of the entire Scripture on their side in this ques- 
tion, they must have been of the opinion that John and 
Matthew were in agreement on this point. Their 
opponents also took for granted that under all circum- 
stances the Gospels must agree with one another and that 
they did actually so agree ; but on the authority of 
John, especially of John xviii. 28, they claimed that Jesus 
partook of His last meal, “which they regarded as in no 
sense a Jewish Passover meal, on the 13th of Nisan, and 
died on the 14th of Nisan as the true Passover lamb. 

How the original representatives of these two opposing 
practices and exegetical views found support in detail in 
the texts for their common principle, namely, that the 
four Gospels are in harmony with one another, we are 
unable to determine positively from the literature which 
has come down to us, and which consists merely of scanty 
fragments. The view of the Johannine account which the 
opponents of the Quartodecimans (Apollinaris, Clement, 
Hippolytus) maintained has become the dominant view 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 275 


also in modern times. The Tiibingen school made this 
one of their principal arguments against the genuineness 
of the Fourth Gospel. They maintained that the anti- 
Quartodecimanian Fourth Gospel could not have been 
written by the apostle John, who according to trustworthy 
tradition was himself a Quartodeciman in practice; in 
fact, that one of the reasons for the composition of the 
Gospel and its ascription to the apostle was to give 
support to the anti-Quartodecimanian manner of observing 
Haster (n. 13). This view was extreme, and may be dis- 
missed in a few words. In the first place, if this were the 
writer's purpose, then he must have been devoid of intelli- 
gence. For he leaves the character of Jesus’ last meal 
entirely indefinite (xiii. 2) and says nothing about the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper, thus leaving entirely 
untouched the chief point of dispute in the Easter con- 
troversy of the second century. Nor does he anywhere 
inform his readers expressly regarding the time relation 
between the separate acts of the Passion and the various 
parts of the Jewish Passover, and his own definite view 
regarding this relation which is thought by many to 
contradict that of the Synoptists comes out only in an 
incidental way. A man who conceived the bold idea of 
setting aside the view regarding the most important part 
of the gospel history which had prevailed up to his time 
and upon which the method of celebrating Haster in the 
Church of Asia was based, must have attempted to do so 
by an out and out denial of the correctness of the prevail- 
ing practice, and by positively claiming in the appropriate 
place at the beginning of the history of the Passion the 
correctness of the opposite practice. The later he wrote 
and the more deeply the practice which he antagonised 
had become rooted with the lapse of time through the 
influence of literature and of Church usage, the more 
positive must have been his denial. The employment of 
such entirely inadequate means as it is claimed that the 


276 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writer used to accomplish his purpose resulted in the com- 
plete failure of his attempt in the immediate region where 
the Fourth Gospel originated: for, with the exception 
of the isolated case of Apollinaris, the Church of Asia 
Minor remained Quartodecimanian until within the fourth 
century. In the second place, even if John did observe 
Easter in Ephesus according to Quartodecimanian practice, 
we have no right to assume that at this early date he was 
influenced by the same considerations and arguments 
which the Quartodecimans advanced in the disputes 
between the years 165 and 200 when their time-honoured 
custom was attacked. That the conception of Christ as 
the Paschal Lamb.of His Church is entirely independent 
of the » alleged view of John that Jesus died on the 14th of 
Nisan, before He could have partaken of the Passover 
meal, is proved by Paul; since he expresses the idea even 
more clearly than the anthor of the Fourth Gospel (1 Cor. 
y..7)y although he is familiar with the fact that Jésus 
observed. the Jewish Passover on the night of His arrest, 
and on this night instituted the toads Supper (above, 
vol. 11. 380 ander no. 7). The conception of Christ as the 
Paschal Lamb which is found throughout the N.T. is in no 
way based upon this alleged coincidence of the hour of 
Jesus’ death with the time of the ‘slaying of the’ Passover 
lamb, but was involved in the view that redemption under 
the new covenant was the counterpart of the deliverance 
from Egypt, and found merely a natural point of con- 
nection in the fact that Jesus died at the time of the 
Jewish Passover, and not, for example, during the feast 
of Tabernacles (John vii. 2-10). In a similar way the 
Quartodecimanian observation of Haster was not dependent 
upon the chronological details of the Passion, e.g., upon 
the fact advanced by the later Quartodecimans that Jesus 
observed the Passover and instituted the Lord’s Supper on 
the 14th of Nisan, for the reason that the observance 
of the Lord’s Supper by the Church and the Christian 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 277 


Passover—for that is what the special yearly celebration 
of the Eucharist really was—is not a memorial celebration 
of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, but the celebration 
of the redemption of the entire Church by Christ,—an 
antitype of the Jewish Passover meal. 

In just the same way the method of observing Easter 
in the West, opposed to that of the Quartodecimans, is not 
dependent upon the exegetical opinion of Apollinaris or 
Clement regarding single passages in the Fourth Gospel, 
since Irenzeus, Origen, and Tertullian observed Easter 
after the manner customary in the West, without on that 
account denying that Jesus observed the Passover on the 
evening before His death at the time prescribed by the 
law, and, consequently, without denying that the earliest 


possible date for His death was the 15th of Nisan (n. 14). | 
The Quartodecimanian observance of Easter may have | 


been introduced into the province of Asia by Paul or his 
disciples (Timothy, Epaphras, and others), and John may 
have adopted the method of Easter observance which he 
found already existing in Ephesus, without regard to our 
view of the details of the chronology of the Passion 
history ; since the fact that Jesus had partaken of His last 
meal with His disciples at the time of a Jewish Passover 
feast, the fact that He had suffered death and had risen 
from the dead, and that by choosing this time for His 
redemptive acts He had represented Himself as the 


Paschal Lamb of the new covenant, and His work as the 


antitype of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, were 
facts established beyond all question and independent of 
chronological details. If John did hold a view of the 
date of Jesus’ death different from that held by Paul and 
the Churches from Antioch to Corinth, by the Synoptists 
and the different circles who reproduced their tradition, 
the possibility that this would have influenced him to 
oppose the custom in vogue in the Churches of the pro- 
vince of Asia was rendered less by the fact that in 


278 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Palestine he himself, like all his companions, had lived 
according to the law which required the yearly celebra- 
tion of the Jewish Passover, but which in the case of 
Christians could not terminate without the celebration of 
the Christian Passover meal, namely, the Eucharist. Con- 
sequently, John’s Quartodecimanian practice in Ephesus is 
no proof whatever that this John connected the different 
stages of the Passion history with the different days of 
the Jewish feast of the Passover, and so argues nothing 
against his authorship of the Fourth Gospel, even if this 
should be found to present a view of the chronology of 
Jesus’ Passion differing from that of the later Quarto- 
decimans. The belief still prevalent that this is actually 
the case, has influenced many who are convinced that the 
Fourth Gospel was written by the apostle John, or at 
least by an eye-witness of the Passion history, in some 
instances to form conclusions regarding the Synoptists 
which deny all connection between them and first hand 
information; in other cases, to make bold conjectures 
concerning the facts in the case designed to remove the 
alleged contradiction between John and the Synoptists 
(aiid), 

There is, however, no occasion whatever to dispute the 
fact that all three Synoptists report, without the least evid- 
ence of uncertainty about the matter, Jesus’ observance 
of the Jewish Passover at the time prescribed by the 
law, namely, on the 14th of Nisan, His crucifixion on the 
15th of Nisan, 2.e. on Friday, and His resurrection on the 
17th of Nisan, which fell on a Sunday. According to the 
preceding investigations (§§ 48-63) this is attested by the 
apostle Matthew, by Mark, who drew his account prin- 
cipally from the oral discourses of Peter, and in whose 
home Jesus partook of His last meal, and also by Luke, 
who had been a member of the Church in Antioch since 
about the year 40, and who also had abundant oppor- 
tunity to inform himself of the details of the gospel history 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 279 


from members of the original Church, of which oppor- 
tunities he made good use. But even if these results of 
the investigation of the first three Gospels were less 
certain than they seem to the present writer to be, it 
would nevertheless remain true that we have to do here, 
not with the opinion of three individual writers, but with 
three representatives of a tradition which before the year 
80 had spread from Palestine to Rome with ramifications 
in many directions. 

To this must be added Paul’s testimony, who publishes 
the same view in the year 57 (vol. ii. 380, no. 7), and 
declares that at the time when the Corinthian Church was 
founded (52-54 a.p.) he had imparted to the Corinthians 
the history of the institution of the Lord’s Supper—in the 
account of which his opinion comes clearly to view—just 
as he had received it by tradition from the Lord (vol. ii. 
384, n. 6). Therefore he must have found this view 
dominant not only in the Church of Antioch between the 
years 43 and 49, but also in the Church in Damascus 
between the years 35 and 38. In view of this fact, it 
seems impossible that an eye-witness of the Passion should 
have held a view regarding the question as to whether 
Jesus’ last meal, when the Lord’s Supper was instituted, 
was a Passover meal, and as to whether Jesus died on the 
14th or 15th of Nisan, differing from the tradition which 
universally prevailed after the year 35, and which was 
necessarily repeated whenever the chief features of the 
Passion history were related, and whenever instruction was 
given regarding the institution and significance of the 
Lord’s Supper. A writer who advanced such a view, and 
at the same time claimed that he occupied a place at 
Jesus’ side during the last meal and stood under His cross, 
would be at once convicted of falsehood, both as regards 
his claim and his view of the time of Jesus’ last meal. If 
the Fourth Gospel dates the chronology of the Passion 
a day earlier—in this way changing the character of 


280 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


essential features of this most important part of the 
gospel history—then the Johannine authorship of the 
record will have to be denied, not because he was a 
Quartodeciman, but because of the close relationship which 
this disciple sustained to Jesus. But is it true that the 
F _Fourth Gospel does date the Passion a-day earlier? 
~~“This question cannot be correctly “answered” if one 
denies what was established above (p. 255 ff.), namely, 
that John wrote for Christians who were familiar with the 
tradition represented in the Synoptics, and especially with 
Mark, in consequence of which he treats this tradition 
throughout as a history which the readers believed and 
which is essentially trustworthy ; that in some instances 
he passes over very important parts of this history with- 
out thereby implying any doubt as to its importance or 
truth; that in other instances he incidentally takes for 
granted that events have happened and are known (e.g. 
vi. 2,70); and finally, that in cases where he does find 
the synoptic account misleading (e.g. iii. 24), or actually 
inaccurate and incorrect, he simply supplies another 
account out of his own fuller knowledge (e.g. xii. 7), 
or corrects it in so many words (e.g. xviii. 18). In the 
light of these facts it must be self-evident that if John 
had held the synoptic accounts, or, rather, the tradition 
universally current in the early Church regarding the 
character of Jesus’ last meal and the time relation of His 
death to the celebration of the Jewish Passover, to be 
incorrect, he must either have corrected the same ex- 
pressly, clearly, and in the appropriate place, or have 
omitted all corrections, and have replaced the synoptic 
accounts by another account. An eye-witness of the 
events would certainly not have lacked the courage to 
make such corrections, and a pseudonymous writer, who 
intended by his invention to oppose or to correct the 
account which had been heretofore believed and upon 
which Church usage was based (see above, p. 275 f.), must 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 281 


have summoned it to action. But there is nothing of 
this spirit in the Fourth Gospel. The author does not 
show any disposition to instruct his readers concerning 
the relation of the last events of Jesus’ life to the Jewish 
Passover; he only uses this relation to explain a few 
occurrences. On the other hand, he does lay a £008. deal 
rose. from the dead on a Sunday (zix. 14, 31,-42, xx. 1, 
19, 26), evidently because the Christian arrangement ne 
the days of the week was based upon this presupposition 
(Rev. i 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx: 7). But in this 
John agrees entirely with the Synoptists. Even as early 
as vil. 8 (cf. vv. 1-6) the attentive reader is prepared by 
what is there said to expect that Jesus will not end His 
career at the feast of Tabernacles, but at a later feast, 
which is definitely in mind. In xi, 45-53 his attention 
is directed to the near approach of Jesus’ death; in xi. 
54-57, to the nearness of the Passover. The date of His 
arrival in Bethany, xii. 1, is reckoned with reference to 
the Passover (n. 16). Since, however, in the case of the 
six days which follow the transition from one to the other 
is indicated in only a single instance (xii. 12), it is 
impossible for the reader to assign the events recorded 
in xii. 20—xvili. 27 to the particular days on which they 
took place; but if, like the first readers of the Fourth 
Gospel, he already has a definite view of the course of 
events during the last days, he finds nothing in John 
which contradicts it, certainly not in xiii. 1. 

When this passage is correctly understood (n. 8), the 
very most that can be inferred from it is that everything 
related in xiii. 2-xx. 29 took place.during the Passover 
which began some time during the course of the 14th of 
Nisan ; eee ea the: reader observes, as he must do at 
‘once, that what is recorded in xiii. 2—xviil. 27 took place_ 
on the last evening and the night before Jesus’ death, 
this preconceived idea that the meal mentioned in 


282 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


xiii. 2 ff. was the Passover meal could only be confirmed, 
especially since the omission of the article before Setmvov 
yevouévov, xill. 2, was an appeal to the reader’s previous 
knowledge of the history of the last evening of Jesus’ 
life, and the verse contained not the slightest hint of any 
intention on the writer’s part to inform his readers more 
fully regarding the time and character of this meal. 

/ Readers such as John had in mind could not infer, 


/even from xiii, 29, that the feast was still to take place, 
and had not begun already at the time of xii. 2. The 


first passage which could lead them astray was xvi. 28. 
But as a matter of fact, so far as we know, the author’s 
own disciples and the Church of the province of Asia were 
not misled by the verse, and it was not until the middle 
of the second century that several scholars came to the 
conclusion that, according to John, the Passover meal had 
not yet been celebrated on the morning of the crucifixion, 
—a view, opposition to which to-day is almost an act of 
impropriety (n. 17). But for scholarly readers, who 
know how to put themselves in the place of the original 
readers, the singular expression ¢ayeiy To mdacya is less 
difficult to accept than the possibility that in this passage, 
near the end of his book, in an entirely incidental remark 
which has no connection either with Jesus’ last meal or 
with the transactions and sufferings on the last day of His 
life, but which ostensibly is designed merely to explain 
why members of the Sanhedrin refused to enter the 
Preetorium, the writer should have attempted to over- 
throw a view of his readers which he has left entirely 
undisturbed throughout the whole of the preceding 
account (xii. 1-xviii. 27). It would be more credible to 
assume that daywow is an early scribal error for éywow, 
which would then naturally refer to the entire seven days’ 
feast just begun. But it is not necessary to employ such 
a drastic means of escaping the difficulty, since the usage 
of the expression ‘“‘to eat the Passover” loosely and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 283 


popularly for the entire seven days’ or, properly, seven 
and a half days’ feast, beginning with the slaughter of the 
Passover lamb, is adequately attested (n. 17). Moreover, 
it is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin had 
specifically in mind the so-called Chagigah, the sacrificial 
meal of .the.15th os eesoae, which, unlike the Passover 
sundowi, Cum a ORE evangelista, correctly 
remarks the elder Lightfoot (Opp. i. 670). To stake 
everything upon one little subordinate clause, or possibly 
even upon a single letter in the clause, and to leave out 
of consideration everything that is said elsewhere in the 
book, and the clear relation of the whole narrative to the 
older accounts, is not exegetical accuracy, but violates the 
laws of historical interpretation. The relation of the 
Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics harmonises with John 
of Ephesus’ brief judgment regarding Mark: éxpiBds 
éypanpev, ovpévtos tafe, which, because it is brief, requires 
careful elaboration, and with Papias’ judgment, based 
upon the statement of John: oddev jjaprev Mapxos. Thus 
the investigations of this section confirm the conclusions 
reached above in §§ 48-63 regarding the origin of the 
first three Gospels. 

1. (P. 255.) Concerning the relation of John to the Synoptics, cf. Hug, 
Einl.? ii. 191-205 ; Baur, Krit. Unters. tiber die kanon Hvv. 1847, S. 239-280 ; 
Holtzmann, Z/WTh, 1869, S. 62-85, 155-178, 446-456. Wuttig (Das joh. 
Ev. und seine Abfassungszeit), S. 52-59, is under necessity of denying John 
all reference to the Synoptics, because, contrary to most critics, he makes 
Luke write his Gospel to supplement the Fourth Gospel, S. 59-69, 96-102. 
Of still less importance are the few words with which Gebhardt, Die 
Abfassungszett des Jo. ev. 1906, S. 15-17, believes that he can discredit all 
proofs for John’s attention to the synoptic tradition. 

2. (Pp. 255, 256.) That John i. 6-viii. 15 is no substitute for an historical 
introduction—such as is found in Matt. iii. 1-6; Mark i. 2-8, but especially 
in Luke i. 5-25, 39-80, iii. 1-20—is obvious. It is likewise obvious that the 
conjecture that the Baptist wished to pass for the Messiah (John i. 20, 25, 
ef. iii. 28; Luke iii. 15)—a conjecture presupposed by the question put to 
him by the embassy—could not have arisen so early in his public activity. 


If, as is undoubtedly the case, in ver. 24 dreoradpévor, without the article, 
is the correct reading, it is to be rendered : “and there were sent Pharisees” ; 


284 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


since here, as in ix. 40, xvi. 17; Rev. ii. 10, iii. 9; Matt. xxiii. 34 (similarly 
also John vii. 40; Rev. ii. 17; Matt. xiii. 47, xxvii. 9; ZKom. Matt. 700), 
extav Papicaiov is a Hebrew and Syriac idiom (Blass, Ntl. Gr. § 35.4; Néldeke, 
Syr. Gr. § 249c) = des Pharisiens. The official embassy (cf. v. 33) consisted 
of priests and Levites, and was made up, therefore, not of Pharisees, but 
rather of adherents of the Sadducean party; these were accompanied, how- 
ever, by representatives of the Pharisaic party. Moreover, as Origen saw,— 
although his insight is not without error (tom. vi. 5 in Jo.),—the tenor of 
their question proves that the persons speaking in ver. 24 are altogether 
different from those speaking in vv. 19-23. The fact that in the Fourth 
Gospel the Baptist is never called 6 Bamriorns (Matt. 6 times, Mark 3 times, 
Luke 3 or 4 times, also Josephus),—although baptism is everywhere spoken 
of as his distinctive calling (i. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 111. 23, iv. 1, x. 40),—may be 
due to the circumstance that the apostle John is never mentioned by name 
in the Fourth Gospel. There is no occasion, therefore, to distinguish be- 
tween the Baptist and the apostle. The various readings in ver. 27 are due 
to a mistaken effort to find in this verse the earlier testimony to which the 
Baptist refers in ver. 30 (=ver. 15). The testimony recalled in ver. 30 
belongs before the beginning of the narrative in ver. 19ff. Since it pre- 
supposes also that profounder knowledge of Jesus which the Baptist obtained 
only when the Spirit descended upon Him at His baptism (vv. 31-34), this 
revelation in visible form, 7.e. the baptism of Jesus, must likewise precede 
vv. 19-27. This is proved also by ver. 26; for the emphatic dv tpets od 
oidare implies a dy éy@ oida, without which also the positive péoos ipav orncet 
would be unintelligible. The description of the Messiah as 6 Bamrifey ev 
mvevpart ayia, which is used in ver. 33 as if it were a familiar conception, 
presupposes on the part of the readers acquaintance with the fact that the 
Baptist had ascribed to the Messiah, who was to come after him, baptizing 
with the Spirit as His principal function, cf. Mark i. 8; Matt. iii. 11; Luke 
ili. 16. Similarly also only readers familiar with Mark i. 11 (Matt. iii. 17; 
Luke iii. 22) could understand how, on the basis of the experience related 
in vy. 32-33, the Baptist could claim to have testified previously what is 
given in ver. 34 as the contents of his testimony. In the same verse éxXexrds 
(w* Sc Ss e) is to be read instead of vids, as in the Textus receptus, which 
agrees with the év ¢ eddéxnoa of the Synoptics, when this phrase is correctly 
understood =“ whom I have chosen,” cf. Luke ix. 35, xxiii. 35. But in the 
use of this word John, like Peter (vol. ii. 215 ff.), shows that his knowledge 
is independent of the language of the Synoptics. 

3. (Pp. 256, 259, 261.) The correct and, in fact, self-evident interpretation 
of iv. 44 has been urged particularly by Hofmann (Weissagung u. Erfiillung, ii. 
86). The following points are clear : (1) In this connection, where only Judea 
and Galilee are mentioned, and Samaria is spoken of as the region lying between 
the two (iii. 22, iv. 3, 4, 43-45, 47, 54), the idia marpis of Jesus can be only 
Galilee, not Nazareth, which is not even mentioned, still less Judea. (2) The 
remark, which would have been appropriate in iv. 3, is properly introduced 
in iv. 44, because the unexpectedly great and unsought for results in Sychar, 
which might have diverted another from his immediate calling, and turned 
him aside from his newly formed resolve temporarily to withdraw from public 
work (iv, 1-3), had not so affected Jesus, but had rather led Him, in view of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 285 


the common experience that a prophet is not apt to be very highly esteemed 
in his own home, to leave Sychar at once, and immediately to continue His 
journey into His native Galilean homeland. Whether on this occasion Jesus 
actually spoke the word concerning the prophet, or whether John, remember- 
ing that Jesus had used this proverbial expression on another occasion (Matt. 
xili. 57; Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24), introduces it in order to explain why 
Jesus continued His journey to Galilee, cannot be determined. (8) airés 
"Inoods (without an article, as in ii. 24) does not, like ’Incots ards, iv. 2, mean 
“Jesus Himself,” as distinguished from His disciples or others, who might 
have been more likely to express themselves in this way. The meaning is 
exactly the same as in ii. 24: “He for His part” thought and spoke thus, in 
contrast to what, from a different point of view, might otherwise have been 
thought and done. In this instance it meant that the results were not 
entirely in accordance with the purpose of Jesus. (4) It is not necessary 
in this case that odv in ver. 45 be replaced by 64¢, since ver. 45 does not in any 
sense express a consequence and result of ver. 44 or ver. 43. Jesus’ friendly 
reception by the Galileans was a result neither of the common experience 
noted in ver. 44, nor of the circumstance that Jesus had uttered the words 
of ver. 44, nor of His journey to Galilee (ver. 43), nor even of His un- 
reported work in Galilee, but the outcome rather of the miracles which He 
had wrought in Jerusalem. The particle ov, which John uses with very 
great frequency (about 210 times; in all three Synoptics only about 110 
times), is used here, as often in John, especially after inserted remarks, 
simply in order to resume, or even merely to continue, the narrative ; cf. iii. 
25, iv. 5, 9 (certainly genuine), xi. 3, 6,14. The contrast between the mind 
and purpose with which Jesus went to Galilee (iv. 1-3, 43-44), and His 
reception there, is not formally expressed in this passage any more than it 
is in those passages where John connects contrasted statements by kai 
(eg. i. 10,11). That Jesus, however, did persist in His opinion and purpose 
is attested by ver. 48, and by the silence of the Gospel concerning the 
public activity in which Jesus might have permitted Himself to become 
engaged. 

4, (P. 260.) This is not the connection in which to give an outline of the 
gospel history, though it is in place to sketch its plan according to John. If 
in v. 1 we read 7 éoprn, with NC, etc., there can be no doubt that the reference 
is to the feast of Tabernacles, since in vii. 2 the expression 4 ¢opr) rav 
"Iovdaiwv, clear enough in itself, is further explained by the appositional 
phrase 7 oxnvornyia (vi. 4 is not a parallel case). This corresponds to the 
use of 3n in the narrower sense of the feast of Tabernacles—a usage common 
in the Talmud, to which there is approach even in the O.T. (see Levy, 
Jastrow, Dalman, s.v.), a usage also which is in keeping with the extremely 
popular character of this feast. The error of the Church Fathers, beginning 
with Ireneus, and of many modern interpreters, in assuming that “the feast 
of the Jews” means simply the Passover, is due to the supposition that the 
Passover must have had the same significance for the Jews that it came to 
have for the Church and its worship through the Passion history. If the 
feast of Tabernacles be meant, then between December (iy. 35) and the feast 
of Tabernacles in v. 1 about nine months elapsed, and a Passover falls within 
the period; but, like everything else which occurred in this interval, is passed 


286 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


over in silence. We would have then, besides the three Passovers mentioned 
in ii. 18-28, vi. 4, xi. 55-xx. 29, a fourth between iv. 35 and y. 1, and between 
the first Passover in ii. 13 and the fourth in x1. 55 an interval of three years. 
If the reading éopr7 without the article (ABD, etc.) be preferred, so far as the 
language is concerned one is at liberty to assume any feast he pleases, e.g. the 
feast of Purim after the December suggested in iv. 35, and preceding the 
Passover of vi. 4 by a month. But this is, in fact, historically impossible, 
assuming, of course, that John is writing history. It would then be necessary 
to crowd into the single month between Purim and the Passover, less the 
time occupied by the journey from Jerusalem to Galilee and the days which 
intervened between the feeding of the multitude and the Passover (vi. 4), ze. 
into about three weeks, the whole of Jesus’ extensive Galilean ministry (the 
content of Matt. iv. 12—xiv. 12), for which John leaves no place before chap. v., 
and which is presupposed in chap. vi. This is impossible. If éopry be the 
correct reading, either the Passover, or Pentecost, or Tabernacles must be 
meant. Not only in case it be interpreted as the third feast, which would be 
self-evident if we read 7 €oprn, but also in case it be interpreted as the first or 
second, according to John’s plan, besides the three Passovers mentioned, there 
would be a fourth, belonging somewhere between iv. 35 and vi. 4. The 
whole course of events would then be the same as if we read 7 éopr7j. The 
only difference arising from the various possibilities would be the interval of 
time between iv. 35 and v. 1, or between v. 1 and vi. 4. This would vary, 
while that between iv. 35 and vi. 4, and the period covered by the gospel 
history, would in any case remain the same. 

5. (P. 261.) Leaving out of account general agreement in the progress of 
the story and in situation, resemblances between John vi. 3-13 and Matt. 
xiv. 18-21, Mark vi. 34-44, Luke ix. 11-17, are as follows: (1) The five 
loaves of bread and two fishes ; (2) the twelve baskets of fragments ; (3) the 
five thousand men (only in Matt. are women and children expressly excluded) ; 
(4) the two hundred denarii (only in Mark vi. 37 and John vi. 7). Peculiar 

AS aed (1) the conversation between Jesus, Philip, and Andrew (of 
which the Synoptics give only a colourless picture). Mark alone has a some- 
what more vivid account, so that in Mark vi. 37 the name Philip can be 
supplied from John, and in Mark vi. 38 the name of Andrew. In this 
connection it may also be remarked that John very closely resembles Mark : 
dvarinrew twice in John, once in Mark; the picturesque description of the 
grass-covered ground (expressed in Mark by xAwpés, in John by sodis) ; 
(2) maSdpiov, ver. 9; (3) the description of the loaves of bread as dpiécvo., 
vv. 9, 13; and (4) the characterisation of the fish as dydpia, vv. 9, 11 
(cf. xxi. 9, 10, 18). 

6. (P. 264.) That the event referred to in John xii. 2-8 and hence in 
xi. 2 is the one mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 6-13, Mark xiv. 3-9, and not the 
story in Luke vii. 36-50, is apparent from the place (Bethany) ; the near- 
ness of the Passover; the character of the woman who anointed Jesus ; the 
practical identity and at the same time the difference in the remarks called 
out by the deed. But it is equally evident that in the statement (John 
xii. 3) that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus and dried them with her hair, the 
Johannine narrative varies from Matt. xxvi. 7 (emi ris xebadjs) and Mark 
xiv. 3 (kara ris kepadijs), where nothing is said of the anointing of the feet of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 287 


Jesus, and of their being dried with the woman’s hair, although one does not 
exclude the other, and possibly the indefinite roy xvpiov in xi. 2 (cf. Matt. 
xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8, rd cépua pov) permits of both. It is also undeniable 
that John here resembles Luke vii. 38. Even the Lucan word éxpdocew is 
found in John xi. 2, xii. 3. This is not the place to settle the question 
whether Luke is here relating an historical fact distinct from the anointing 
in Bethany, or whether the same fact has been handed down in the two 
entirely different forms, one of which is found in Matt., Mark, and John, the 
other in Luke. In favour of the latter hypothesis is the fact that in Luke the 
host’s name is Simon, as in Matt. and Mark, and the fact that Luke, in view 
of his own distinct account of the anointing, omits the anointing in Bethany 
with which he was familiar from Mark (above, p. 102). On the other hand, 
it is not impossible that two different events, which, however, agreed in some 
points, were assimilated to each other in the oral tradition more than they 
should have been, which gave rise to resemblances that awaken suspicions on 
the part of critically disposed investigators. But this is a question having to 
do more with the dodddea of the traditions used by Luke than with the 
relation of John to the Synoptics. John agrees with Mark as against Matt. in 
the following points: (1) the valuation of the ointment at three hundred 
denarii (ver. 5 = Mark xiv. 5 preceded by erdv, Matt. xxvi. 9 only wodod) ; 
(2) in the use of almost exactly the same words, some of which are rare: 
AaBodoa Airpav pipov vdpdSov mioriKHs modvtipov = Mark. ¢yovoa ddaBaorpov 
popov vapdov muorixns modvredovs (Matt., on the other hand, apparently has 
éyovoa GA. ptpov Bapurivov). John xii. 8 is almost identical with Matt. 
xxvi. 11; only Mark xiv. 7 inserts cai drav Oédyre dvvacGe (in other readings 
avrois OF adrovs OY avrots mavrore are added) ed roujoa. In addition to those 
already mentioned, the following are the more important variations in the 
Johannine account of Mary’s action: (1) whereas the connection of the story 
in Mark and Matt. makes possible the impression—a possibility which dis- 
appears when the words are carefully considered—that the event took place 
two days before the Passover (Matt. xxvi.2,6; Mark xiv. 1,3, ZKom. Matt. 677), 
John says (xii. 1) that Jesus arrived six days before the Passover ; so that the 
feast given in His honour occurred either on the same or the next day, certainly 
on the day before the triumphal entry (xii. 12). This is not a correction of 
the Synoptics, any more than is iil. 24, but is intended rather to guard 
against a misunderstanding that might easily arise from the synoptic 
accounts, which do not follow exactly the chronological order. (2) John does 
not mention the host Simon, neither does he say who prepared the feast, con- 
sequently he does not indicate in whose house it took place. That, however, 
John did not think of it as taking place in the house of the sisters, is evident 
from the fact that in that case it would not be necessary to mention the 
circumstance that Martha helped in the serving, and still less the fact that 
Lazarus was one of those at the table. (3) Only John mentions the amount 
or weight of the ointment (ver. 3, cf. xix. 39). (4) John puts into the mouth 
of Judas practically the same words which in Matt. xxvi. 8 the disciples as 
a body are represented as saying, and which are assigned to some of the dis- 
ciples in Mark xiv. 4, with whose account, therefore, at this point John 
agrees more closely than with that of Matthew and Luke. The situation is 
exactly the same as in John vi. 5-9 (see above, n. 5), ang here the work of the 


288 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


harmonist is not a difficult one. The explanation of Judas’ words in ver. 6 
(cf. xiii. 29) seems to be derived from independent information, particularly 
since John says nothing about the payment of money to the traitor by the 
Sanhedrin, which is more easily understood if John’s explanation in ver. 6 be 
correct. (5) Undoubtedly the correct reading in ver. 7 is iva eis ryv nuépav 
rod évrapiacpod pov tnpyon airé. But since this Mary had nothing to do 
with the burial of Jesus, and since even those women who did desire to 
anoint Jesus failed to accomplish it (Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiii. 56, xxiv. 1), 
the reading was easily replaced by rernpyxev omitting iva, without thereby 
making the personages agree with Matt. xxvi. 12; Mark xiv. 8. According 
to the correct reading of ver. 7, Jesus’ aim is to prevent Judas’ words from 
affecting the future acts of Mary and the disciples. He assumes that Mary 
will gladly use the remainder of the ointment left in the vessel to anoint His 
body, when He is laid in the grave. At the same time He indicates that this 
will shortly take place. The only point which Matt., Mark, and John have 
in common is the notice of Jesus’ approaching burial. 

7. (P. 266.) In the first and second German editions the present writer 
preferred the reading ini. 13, of . . . eyevvnOnoay, of the Teatus receptus, and 
therefore found only an indirect confirmation of the statement that Jesus was 
born of a Virgin (cf. also the writer’s work, Das apost. Symbolum, S. 62 f.). 
Since then, however, by more careful investigation of the tradition, and 
especially for reasons of style, he has become convinced of the originality of 
the reading éeyevvnOn without és, which prevailed until the fourth century in 
the Western Church. The proofs of this conclusion, which are not exactly 
simple, will be found in ZKom. Joh. Cf. Resch, Auserkan. Parall. iv. 57 ff. ; 
Ey. Joh., ed. by Blass 1902, p. xii. Readers, such as i. 13 presupposes, could 
not have been misled by Philip’s remark on the first day that he met Jesus 
(i. 46), or by vi. 42, into supposing that Jesus was Joseph’s own son; since 
they knew that the Jews, notwithstanding their belief to the contrary, were 
not at all acquainted with Jesus’ real origin (vii. 27-29, viii. 14), while it was 
not until later that Philip and the other disciples became aware of it (xiv. 
8-11, xvi. 27-30). Neither did they need a learned dissertation to show that 
Jesus was really descended from David and born in Bethlehem,—facts which 
occasionally at least were questioned by some of the common people who 
knew Him only as a Galilean (vii. 41 f., cf. 1. 45, 46, vii. 52). If the readers 
were not familiar with these facts, the evangelist certainly shows unpardon- 
able carelessness, and defeats the purpose stated in xx. 31 in failing to answer 
these criticisms and in not denying—as, indeed, he could not deny—the 
basis of these opinions in Scripture (vii. 42), and in the Law and Prophets 
(i. 45). 

8. (Pp. 268, 281.) That the events recorded in chaps. xiii.—xvii. belong to the 
time of the Passover the readers were already aware from xii. 1, 12, 20, since up 
to this point events have been recorded in strictly chronological order. Con- 
sequently in xiii. 1, 29, the readers are not definitely informed of this fact 
again, but simply reminded of it incidentally in connection with remarlks 
made for a different purpose. With regard to xiii. 1-4, we limit ourselves 
here to the following points; (1) Since v. 1 is grammatically complete, and 
since the object of e/das dri in ver. 1 is entirely different from the object of 
eidas dre in ver.3, there is no occasion to assume a sort of a logical anacoluthon 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 289 


between the two clauses and to take the second «iSés as a resumption of the 
first, by means of these devices making the time indicated in ver. 1 cover the 
washing of the disciples’ feet in ver. 4 ff. (2) In ver. 1 there is as yet no 
reference whatever to the washing of the disciples’ feet. Although strictly 
dyarav always means an emotion expressing itself in deeds (1 John iii. 18), 
and although occasionally, like @uAety, the word is used for a peculiar ex- 
pression of affection, namely, the kiss (Ign. ad Polyc. ii. 3; used by the same 
writer of the celebration of the love feast and the Lord’s Supper, ad Smyrn. 
vil. 1; the word dydarn is found in Jude 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 13; vol. ii. 235); here 
nyamnoev must have the same meaning as dyamyoas which precedes, %.¢. 
Jesus’ devoted love to His own, which was naturally a love manifesting itself 
in wordsand deeds. The translation, “to give a proof of His love,” referring 
to the washing of the disciples’ feet, is not only in itself inadmissible and in- 
compatible with the correlation between dyamnoas and nydmycev, but does not 
agree with eis rédos; for whether the latter phrase means “to the end” 
(Matt. x. 22, xxiv. 13) or “finally” and “ultimately ” (1 Thess. ii. 16; Luke 
xviii. 5), Jesus did not wash the disciples’ feet to the end nor ultimately, nor 
was the washing of the disciples’ feet the last nor the supreme proof of Jesus’ 
love to His own. The greatest proof of His love was still in the future 
(xv. 13, xix. 17-37) ; such proof was not lacking even after the resurrection 
and the ascension; nor between the washing of the disciples’ feet and the 
laying down of His life. Furthermore, leaving out of account the fact that 
the discourses in xiii. 18-xvii. 26 evidence Jesus’ very great love for His 
disciples (cf. especially xviii. 8, xix. 26f.), the washing of the disciples’ feet is 
not given as a proof of love, but as an example of humble service (xiii. 12-17). 
The words dyargoas avrovs serve as a heading for chaps», xili.—xvii. or even 
chaps. xiii.-xx., and mean merely that Jesus kept to the end the love which He 
had ever manifested toward His own who were in the world, and who were to 
remain in the world after His departure. Unlike other men in a similar 
situation, as His terrible death approached, Jesus was not preoccupied with 
thoughts of Himself and anxious to receive help and comfort from His own. 
He was constantly thinking of how He could lovingly serve and help them. 
(3) Since eis réAos must be equivalent to €ws tédous, the other temporal 
expression , rpo ris éoprns Tod maoxa, cannot be taken with the same phrase, 
but ig to be connected with efdms,as in Ss. The scenes of violence which 
were to affect so deeply all the disciples and make them lose their self- 
command (xiv. 1, xvi. 20-33), did not overcome Jesus, because they did not 
take Him by surprise. “As one who knew before the Passover that the 
hour of His departure out of the world to God had come, Jesus continued to 
show His love for His own... to the end.” Just as the consciousness of. 
the powerrwhich has been. given Him: forms:the background for His humble. 
act in washing their feet (ver. 3 ff.), so the consciousness of His approaching 
yettirn to God, which He had before His Passion, explains the quietness and 
serenity with which Jesus suffered, and the loving spirit of sacrifice by which, 
up to the last moment, He showed Himself to be concerned _not.about.Him- 
self, but about His own. This is a thoroughly Johannine idea (xviii. 4, 
xix. 28; cf. vi. 64, vii. 8,ix. 4f, xi. Of, xii. 7, 23-36; with application to the 
disciples, xiii. 19, xiv. 29, xvi. 4). The placing of the time phrase first is just 
as natural if taken with cidés as with nydrnoer, and it is thus given the 


VOL, III. 19 


290 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


emphasis which the writer intends (cf. i. 1, 48): “Even before the feast and 
not at the time of the feast,” z.e. before the events happened (xiii. 19), not 
when the events had taken place, and because of them, did Jesus know that 
He was to suffer. In this way it is assumed and indirectly attested that the 
events, the account of which follows, took place during the Passover. (4) 
Even if ver. 1 referred to the washing of the disciples’ feet, mpd r. é. 7. 1. 
could not determine the time of this event. In this case we should expect 
“shortly or immediately before the beginning of the feast” (Xen. Cyrop. v. 
5. 89, mpd Seimvov), which would be just before the killing of the Passover 
lamb, that is, the forenoon or noon of the 14th of Nisan ; but Sefrvov in 
ver. 4 (cf. ver. 30) ) places the time of the event in the evening. Assuming 
the usual meaning of mpé as contrasted with perd ry €. or ev ry é., the 
reader was left to choose for himself any moment between the last date 
mentioned (xii. 1, 12) and the afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. This would 
leave the day and the hour of the washing of the disciples’ feet very in- 

_ definite. Still more incredible is the supposition that John, who “tiowhere 
“indicates that the meal in question is Jesus’ last meal, and who makes no 
mention of very important events which took place decile the Last Supper 
(the institution of the Lord’s Supper, etc.), recorded in the Synoptics, should 
have corrected the latter, which say nothing of the washing of the disciples’ 
feet, by merely assigning such a meaningless date to this event. The 
evangelist, who certainly had as much insight as some of his interpreters, has 
been supposed to mean: “Jesus did not partake of His last meal with His 
disciples at the time of the Passover feast, but in connection with a meal 
(Seimvov, ver. 2, without the article) before the Passover, not more definitely 
described, He washed His disciples’ feet” ; which would be as senseless as to 
say, “Luther did not burn the bull of excommunication on December 10, 
1520, but rather on October 31, 1517, he did post the ninety-five theses.” (5) 
Since deirvov yivera signifies aly “a meal takes place,” not “a meal is being 
prepared” or “a meal is begun” (cf. ii. 1, x. 22; Matt. xxvi. 2), the reading 
Seirvov ywvouevov (N*BLX Orig. tom, xxxii. 2), which agrees better with 
ver. 4, means “during the meal ” Seimvov yevopuévov (N2AD, etc.), “after the 
meal.” The determination of the correct reading in this passage is of im- 
portance to one attempting to harmonise the Gospels; but of greater weight 
in the present connection is the fact ‘that John does not consider it necessary 
to say explicitly that a supper was prepared in connection with which the 
following events took place (cf. per contra, xii.2; Mark vi. 21; Luke xiy. 16), 
and that he does not specifically describe the supper in question, either 
positively or negatively. Having indicated to the readers in ver. 1 that from 
this point on he intends to tell what took place at the feast of the Passover 
(see above under 3), he was sure they would understand that the supper to 
be mentioned was the same with which the reader knew the Passover began, 
namely, Jesus’ last meal. 

9. (P. 269.) The designation of the odpé instead of the cdua of Christ 
as the heavenly substance in the Lord’s Supper by Ignatius, Justin, and 
Irenzeus, also the conception of the Lord’s Supper as ddppaxoy aOavacias, is 
derived entirely from John vi.; cf. Ign. Eph. xix. 2; Smyrn. vii. 1; Rom. 
vii. 3; Philad. iv.; Just. Apol. i. 66; Iren. iv. 18. 5, v. 2. 2f.; Clem. Quis 
Div. xxiii. ;:the writer’s Ignatius vom Ant. S. 605; as to whether Marcion is 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 291 


to be considered in this connection, see GK, i. 677, ii. 472. Churches in 
which the Lord’s Supper was called edyapioria, and in which an annual 
celebration, the chief event of which was the Eucharist, was called the Pass- 
over, were led to this understanding of the Lord’s Supper by vi. 4—which 
otherwise is only an unimportant parenthetical remark—and by vi. 11, 23. 
10. (P. 270.) The opinion that John iv. 46-54 is a working over of 
Matt. viii. 5-10, Luke vii. 2-10, is untenable. The point in the synoptic 
narrative is the fact that the centurion is a Gentile whose faith puts to 
shame that of Israel. John’s royal official, on the other hand, is treated by 
Jesus as a representative of the Galilean populace, whose eagerness to see 
miracles Jesus condemns (ver. 48); he is therefore to be regarded as a Jew, 
and belongs to the group of officials of “ King” Herod Antipas (Matt. xiv. 9 ; 
Mark vi. 14) to which reference is made in Luke viii.3; Acts xiii. 1. Theidea 
of the synoptic account would have been in place in John’s narrative ; 
Judeans (iii. 22~iv. 2), Samaritans (iv. 3-43), and then a Gentile, would form 
a climax, and there are no general reasons why John should have failed to 
recognise the strong faith ofa Gentile (cf. x. 16, xi. 52, xii. 20, 32, xvii. 2, 20). 
More difficult to decide is the question of the relationship of John ii. 13-22 to 
the very similar story in Matt. xxi. 12-16; Mark xi. 15-18; Luke xix. 45f. 
It is possible (1) that the Synoptists, who narrate only a single visit to 
Jerusalem, have included in this account facts which belong to an earlier 
visit, and that John, in placing this event earlier, rectifies the earlier accounts 
without comment, It is also possible (2) that Jesus did the same thing twice, 
at the time both of His first visit and of His last visit to Jerusalem. Since 
it was John’s purpose to omit after xil. 19 the later event, with all that 
happened on the following days, he tells of the earlier cleansing of the 
temple. The saying of Jesus which accompanies the action is in each case 
different. On the occasion of His first visit to the temple after His baptism, 
Jesus felt Himself to be the son in His Father’s house, as He did when a boy 
(Luke ii. 49), exercises the authority of the head of the house, and condemns 
the use of the holy places for purposes of trade (John ii. 16; cf. Luke ii. 49), 
Three years later (Matt. xxi. 13; Luke xix. 46) it is the prophet whom 
Jerusalem will murder, as it has His predecessors (Luke xiii. 33 f.), who 
speaks, using the language of the prophets, relative to the proper use of the 
temple (Isa. lvi. 7), which the Jews have turned into a robbers’ cave, believing 
that they and their booty were safe from the arm of divine justice (Jer. vii. 
2-11). On both occasions He was asked to justify His action ; but the first 
time His answer is a riddle, understood by neither friend nor foe (John 
ii, 18-22), but the second time His answer is a counter-question, the purport 
of which could not be misunderstood (Matt. xxi. 24 ff.). When one considers, 
in addition, the many things peculiar to John, even where the narratives are 
parallel (the xépya of xeppariorai, the scourge of cords, the words spoken to 
those who sold doves, and the anxious foreboding of his disciples), he is 
confronted by the alternative of supposing either that a writer—for some 
unknown. reason—has taken old material, and with wonderful skill fashioned 
it into a new picture remarkably suited to the assumed situation, or that 
an eye-witness is here faithfully reproducing impressions received at the time. 
11. (Pp. 270,271.) Ss (in all probability earlier than this Tatian; cf. TAL6, 
1895, col. 20f.) placed John xviii. 24 directly after ver. 13, and inserted 


292 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


vv. 16-18 between ver. 23 and ver.25. The marginal reading of S* (probably 
also an Alexandrian MS. collated by Thomas) and Cyril of Alexandria 
(Migne, lxxiv. 539) place only ver. 24 after ver. 13, and a cursive 255 has 
ver. 24 after mparov of ver. 13a. This interpolation has also crept into 
one of the three MSS. of Sh, namely, the Vatican MS., which until recently 
was the only one known; according to Adler, de N71 vers. syr. p. 196, 
“margint adscripta” ; according to the more exact statement of Lagarde in his 
edition, p. 393, it is an addition of C (the corrector), “non vetus in tnter- 
columnion.” In the edition of Lewis and Gibson nothing is said concerning 
this interpolation on p. 193; and in the preface, p. lxi, one only finds 
something which is inconsistent with the text and notes on p. 193. As for 
the rest, all three MSS. of Sh agree in omitting from ver. 13 the words jv yap 
mevOepos Tov Kaiadpa, so that concerning Annas alone the statement is made: 
bs jv dpxtepeds T. év. ex. This omission, as also the insertion of ver. 24 in or 
after ver. 13, is to be judged as an act of short-sighted arbitrariness, which is 
shown also by the fact that, in spite of this insertion, all the witnesses which 
have been mentioned have ver. 24 also in its proper position. Cyril’s reflec- 
tions (Migne, Ixxiv. 608 f.) on this repetition are merely amusing. Ss, on 
the other hand, offers a text which, in itself, does not appear untrustworthy. 
However, it has an arbitrary emendation, the causes for which are evident. 
(1) The need of the harmonists, who wished to remove the contradiction 
between Matt. xxvi. 57 (mpds Kaidpav) and John xviii. 13 (mpds “Avvav 
mparov). By means of this change it was lessened, in that it appeared that 
Matthew had passed over a very subordinate event. (2) Added to this was 
the astonishment that, according to John xviii. 24, as long as this sentence 
remained in its position nothing at all seems to have taken place before 
Caiaphas. (3) Finally, there was the consideration that, according to xi. 49-51, 
xviii. 13 f., 24, by 6 dpxveped’s of vv. 19, 22 it seemed possible to designate only 
Caiaphas and not Annas. One who, like Sh, would cut the knot by evident 
violence to the text and meaning of ver. 13, could be easily led to infer that 
a hearing, in which the high priest Caiaphas was the principal person, would 
have taken place in his dwelling, and not in the house of his father-in-law 
Annas. He would, for this reason, suppose that ver. 24 had its correct and 
original position after ver. 13. The premise in No. 3 is correct, but the 
conclusion is wrong. Since John everywhere emphasises in the strongest 
manner the high priesthood of Caiaphas, and, on the other hand, never calls 
Annas high priest (Luke ili. 2), nor even says that he had held the office 
earlier, but gives as the only reason why Jesus was led before Annas, the 
relationship of the latter to the high priest Caiaphas, there can be no question 
that Caiaphas is meant in vv. 19, 22 and also in vv. 10, 15, 16,26. But this 
does not in the least invalidate John’s statement to the effect that they led the 
prisoner first to the older man, Annas, before whom was held a preliminary 
hearing, at which, according to Matt. xxvi. 57, 59, Mark xiv. 53, 55, many 
members of the Sanhedrin were present. That the official high priest should 
ask Jesus afew questions in the house of his father-in-law (John xviii. 19) is 
not strange, any more than that later they should go to the house of the 
ruling high priest with the prisoner for the purpose of holding a formal 
session, which must have been previously appointed for a very early morning 
hour at a definite place (ver. 24). The former assumption that Annas and 


* 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 293 


Caiaphas dwelt in separate wings of a single large palace, which enclosed a 
court, has much to commend it, in the light both of the comparison of John 
XVlil. 25-27 (between ver. 24 and ver. 28) with Luke xxii. 61, and because of 
Xvliil. 15. In order to reach Annas, or in order to be near Jesus, who was 
brought before Annas, it was necessary to enter the avdA1 rod dpyvepéws (John 
xvi. 15; Mark xiv. 54, vol. ii. 504), the palace (consisting of several 
buildings, wings, and courtyards) of the reigning high priest, 7.¢., according 
to John, of Caiaphas. This assumption makes it all the more clear why, 
as regards the assignments of the separate acts to the various places and 
assemblies, the tradition of the group of men, who in other respects had the 
best information, is uncertain. Everything took place in the avdAn or oikia rod 
apxtepéws (Luke xxii. 54). 

12. (P. 273.) In regard to the disputes concerning the date of Easter, 
already touched upon (above, pp. 177, 192 f.), ef. E. Schiirer, De Controversiis 
Paschalibus, 1869; in German ZfHTh, 1870, S. 182-284, where the earlier 
literature on the subject is indicated ; cf. also GK, 1. 180-192 ; Forsch, iv. 
283-308. 

13. (P. 275.) The Tibingen critics (Baur, Krit. Unters. 273 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, 
Paschastreit, 159 f., 222 f.) conceive John to be strongly influenced by the idea 
that Jesus was the Passover lamb of the New Testament, and therefore must 
have died on the 14th of Nisan, in reply to which it may be remarked, in 
addition to what has already been said (above, p. 273 ff.), that while the idea 
of Christ as the Passover lamb certainly seems to be suggested in John i. 29, 36 
by the Baptist, there is no particular reference to the Passion history. 
Moreover, it is at least a question whether the reference in xix. 36 is not to 
Ps. xxxiv. 21 rather than to Ex. xii. 46; Num. ix. 12. 

14. (P. 277.) How Ireneus, Tertullian, and Origen dealt with the 
chronological allusions in the Fourth Gospel, especially xvii. 28, unfortun- 
ately we do not know (cf. GK,i.190f. A. 1). Tatian solved the difficulty 
in a peculiar manner, by referring John xiii. 1-20 to the day before the 
appointed day for the feast of the Passover, then inserting Luke xxii. 7-16; 
John xiii. 21 ff., etc. (GK, ii. 551) ; probably also by rendering xviii. 28, as in 
Ss, “ That they might not be defiled, while they ate the Azyma” (ThLb, 1895, 
col. 21; cf. Burkitt, Hv. da-Mephar. ii. 79, 83, 313, and Hjelt, Forsch. vii. 1. 105, 
on the translation of rdoya by xwp chosen by Ss only in the Fourth Gospel). 
Consequently, according to Tatian, they did not fear, lest by defilement they 
should be hindered from participating in the approaching feast of the 
Passover, but lest their eating of the Azyma, which lasted for seven days, 
should be interrupted. Similarly, Maimonides and Bartenora (in Surenhus 
on Pesachim ix. 5) refer a sentence of the Mishnah, which treats only of the 
Passover lamb, to the seven days’ eating of the unleavened bread. 

15. (P. 278.) It is not possible, also hardly necessary, to give here an 
enumeration of the various attempts which, under the supposition that 
John correctly dates Jesus’ death on the 14th of Nisan, have been made 
from the time of Eusebius on (cf. his writing De Pasch. in Mai, N. Patr. 
Bibl. iv. 1. 214 ff.), either to discredit the synoptic account, according to 
which Jesus celebrated the feast of the Passover on the 14th of Nisan and 
died on the 15th, or to show that, notwithstanding some inaccuracies of 
expression, the synoptic account is essentially historical and in harmony with 


294 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


John—the Last Supper really being the Passover feast, although held on the 
13th of Nisan. The present writer is not acquainted with an adequate 
survey of the literature dealing with the question. References to the more 
important of the earlier literature will be found in the commentaries in 
Winer, RW, ii. 202f., and in Schiirer (Uber ghayeiv 1d rdoya), S. 8f.; for 
more recent statements, see R. Scuarur, Das Herrenmahl nach Ursprung wnd 
Bedeutung, 1897, S. 58-99. CHWoLSON attracted attention by his Das letzte 
Passamahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes nach den in Ubereinstimmung 
gebrachten Berichten der Syn. und des Jo. (Mém. de Acad. de St. Pétersbourg, 
Série vii. Tome xli. No. i.; it also appeared separately in St. Petersburg, 
1892) ; see also a paper by the same author in MGW, 1893, also published 
separately, Breslau, 1893. Further treatises in Z/WTh, 1894, S. 542 ff., 1895, 
S. 335 ff., 1898, S. 250 ff. Cf. the discussion by E. Riggenbach, Tha, 1894, 
No. 51. Chwolson denies what, in view of the agreement of Josephus and 
all three Synoptics, seems beyond dispute (n. 17, Nos. 2 and 3), namely, 
that the 14th of Nisan could be included in the feast of the Azyma. 
Accordingly, Matt. xxvi. 17, on which Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7, must be 
dependent, is meaningless as it stands, and must be corrected by conjecture. 
In the Aramaic Matt. the reading was: ‘‘ The first day of the Azyma drew 
near, and the disciples of Jesus drew near (1397) 33p) to him.” The letters 1 a7p 
were dropped out by mistake before 12p, and, in order again to give the words 
meaning, the preposition 1 was inserted before the first word xy. The 
harmonising of the synoptic account thus corrected with the Johannine 
tradition is effected, through the hypothesis that in that year, when the 
14th of Nisan fell on Friday, the Passover lamb was killed on the 
evening of the 13th, in order to prevent a desecration of the Sabbath, 
which otherwise would have been unavoidable, because presumably at that 
time the lamb was not slain before sunset, as in the time of Josephus and the 
Mishnah (see note 16), but after sunset, so that it would have fallen on 
the Sabbath, 7.e. on the 15th of Nisan. The Passover could be celebrated 
immediately after the lamb was slain on the evening of the 13th, or not until 
the evening of the 14th. Jesus and the Pharisees kept the Passover on 
‘the former, the Sadducean high priests on the latter day. According to 
J. Lichtenstein (from his Hebrew commentary on the N.T. 1895, Schr. des 
Instit. Jud. zu Leipzig, No. 48, S. 24-29), this difference between the majority 
under the leadership of the high priests and a minority to which Jesus 
belonged arose from the fact that the Sadducees, in accordance with their view 
that Lev. xxiii. 11 refers to the Sabbath, falsified the dates of the new moon, 
so that in this year the first day of the Passover fell upon a Sabbath. 

16. (P. 281.) John xii. 1 seems to be an exact date, and it is naturally 
to be taken not as Hilgenfeld takes it (Der Paschastreit der alten Kirche, S. 
221 f.) as the peculiar terminology of the Roman calendar, but as an ordinary 
Jewish expression (2 Macc. xv. 36; Jos. Bell. ii. 8.9; Winer, sec. 61. 4 end; 
Wieseler, Bevtriige, 264) ; and is unquestionably to be reckoned from the be- 
ginning of the celebration of the Passover, 2.c. from the slaying of the Pass- 
over lamb between three and five o’clock on the afternoon of the 14th of 
Nisan (Jos. Bell. vi. 9. 3; cf. Pesachim v. 5), which makes Jesus come to 
Bethany on the afternoon of the 8th of Nisan. If now, as the Synoptics 
imply, Jesus died on Friday the 15th, then the 8th of Nisan fell also 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 295 


on Friday. If, on the other hand, as the Johannine account is supposed 
to necessitate, Jesus died on the 14th, and if the 14th was also Friday, 
then the 8th, the date on which Jesus arrived in Bethany, must have 
been a Sabbath. But that is impossible, since Jesus could not travel on 
the Sabbath. One is compelled to make the very improbable assumption 
that Jesus arrived in the vicinity of Bethany on the 7th—so that on the 
8th He was compelled to make only a Sabbath day’s journey. But why 
should Jesus have planned the journey so badly as, within a short distance 
of His destination—the friendly home in which He regularly lodged during 
the last days of His life—to be under necessity of seeking quarters for 
Himself and the large company with Him? It was only necessary to start 
fifteen or twenty minutes earlier, or to hurry a little, in order to avoid this. 
But if the day of Jesus’ arrival in Bethany, according to John xii. 1, the 
8th of Nisan was not a Sabbath, then, according to John, the 15th of 
Nisan was not a Sabbath; in other words, the Sabbath, during which 
Jesus was in His grave (John xix. 31, 42, xx. 1), was not the 15th of 
Nisan. Since to assume in this particular year, in addition to the synoptic 
and the alleged Johannine chronology, a third arrangement of the days of 
the week in relation to the days of the month, for which there is no evi- 
dence whatever, is entirely arbitrary, it follows that John and the synoptics 
are in perfect agreement at this point. In xii. 2 we are not told that Jesus 
and the disciples ate supper at the end of their journey,—something indeed 
which would not have been worth telling, and which would have been men- 
tioned incidentally, like the supper in xill. 2,—but that a feast was prepared 
in His honour (above, p. 287, n. 6), which probably did not take place 
immediately upon Jesus’ arrival on Friday the 8th, but on the Sabbath, the 
9th (cf. Luke xiv. 1). If Jesus arrived in Bethany early in the afternoon 
of the 8th, when the usual preparation of the food for the coming Sabbath 
was made, the arrangements for the feast of the following day could still 
have been completed before sunset and hence before the beginning of the 
Sabbath. This would make the entry into Jerusalem take place on Sunday 
the 10th. The time mentioned in xii. 12 can only be the day after the 
anointing, since vv. 10, 11 contain no indications as to time. This conclusion 
is not affected by the fact that in xii. 2 the relation of this event to the time 
indicated in xii. 1 is left indefinite. The same thing occurs, ¢g., in i. 41 
in relation to i. 39,and yet the narrative is continued in i. 43 with rf 
émavpiov. John is not writing a journal, in which no day may be passed 
over, especially is he not doing so in the Passion history. He simply desires 
to call attention to the fact that on the day after the quiet anticipation of 
His burial in Bethany, Jesus entered Jerusalem amid universal rejoicing, 
which to His enemies seemed so terrible (xii. 12-19). The common view 
has been thought to have support in xix. 14, on the assumption that mapackeuy 
rod macyxa corresponds to the Jewish nop7 a5y, which means literally evening, 
4.e. eve, of the Passover, being also parallel to wy ayax, the common term for 
the whole of the 14th of Nisan (e.g. Pesachim iv. 6), and, like naw ay, a 
designation of the day before the Sabbath, eg. Friday. John, according to 
this view, presents the case in which the 14th of Nisan, the ‘ereb happesach, 
falls on a Friday, on ‘ereb shabbath (Pesachim v. 1). But it must first be 
shown that mapackevyn is ever used as an equivalent for ay, and, like the 


296 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


latter term, came to be regarded as needing a modifying genitive, like ca8Bdrov 
or rod wdoxa. In the N.T. and Christian literature the word is complete in 
itself, and always used like the Aram. xpaqy, (xnany) for the sixth day of 
the week, namely, Friday. Where a qualifying word is found, it is not the 
name of the following day in the genitive (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2, ev caBBaow 
4 tH mpd avtis wapackevn). The word mapackevy without any modifiers 
whatever is used of the day of Jesus’ death in Mark xv. 42; Matt. xxvii. 62 ; 
Luke xxiii. 54; John xix. 31, 42, consequently also in John xix. 14. John 
lays great weight upon the days of the week on which the crucifixion, the 
burial, and the resurrection took place, and upon the fact that this whole 
series of events took place during the time of the Passover (above, pp. 276 f., 
280 f.). The two ideas are associated in the passage, xix. 14, where he men- 
tions the day and the hour when sentence of death was passed upon Jesus : 
“Tt was Friday at the time of the Passover, and about the sixth hour.” 
These statements serve at the same time as a preparation for what follows. 
Because the following day was a Sabbath falling within the Passover period, 
it was especially holy, and every desecration had to be avoided (xix. 31, 42), 
even more scrupulously than on other Sabbaths (v. 9, vii. 23, ix. 14). The 
fact that in the Bab. Sanhedrin 43a, 67a, it is thrice stated that Jesus was 
crucified “on the ‘ereb happesach” (fol. 43a, according to the Florentine MS., 
quoted by Dalman following Laible’s Jesus in Talmud, S. 15*, “on ‘ered 
shabbath and ‘ereb happesach”) contributes nothing to the understanding of 
the Fourth Gospel. The rabbis obtained their knowledge of the gospel his- 
tory mostly from uncertain hearsay and Christian tradition which had begun 
to fade; cf. GK, ii.673 ff. If these statements were derived from the Hebrew 
or Aramaic translation of John’s Gospel, which was read by Jews at Scytho- 
polis in the fourth century (Epiph. Her. xxx. 6), the translation of John xix. 14 
could not have been very happy. Sh (in two MSS. against one) has xnany in 
xix. 14, 31, 42; S! has xnany in xix. 14, 31, but in xix. 42 renders quite freely 
“because the Sabbath had begun.” Ss has the same in xix. 42 with a 
different verb; but xix. 14, 31 is lacking in Ss, and all three references in Sc. 

17. (P. 282.) Scutrur in his festal publication, Uber payeiv To madoxa 
(Giessen, 1883), strongly opposes the interpretation briefly outlined above. 
It has recently been defended by J. van Busser (Zur Chronol. des Lebens 
Jesu, 1898, S. 5-81), partially on new grounds. Here discussion must he 
limited to bare essentials. Idoya means in the N.T. as in the O.T.—(1) The 
Passover lamb, as object of Ovew, hayeiv, etc. ; Ex. xii. 21; Deut. xvi. 6f.; 
2 Chron. xxx. 15, 18 ; Matt.xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12-14; Luke xxii. 7,11, 15; 
1 Cor. v. 7; (2) the observance of the 14th of Nisan, 7.e. the feast of the 
Passover, including the slaying of the lamb, which preceded, to be dis- 
tinguished from the seven days’ festival which followed, called the dupa, 
generally used as the object of movety, Ex. xii. 48; Lev. xxiii. 5f.; Deut. 
xvi. 1; Philo, De Septen. xviii. 19; Jos. Ant. ii. 14. 6, iii. 10,5; Bell. vi. 9. 
3; Matt. xxvi.18; Mark xiv.1; Heb. xi. 22. In the case of ¢roiud€esv 7d 2., 
Matt. xxvi. 19; Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 8, 18, we have the choice of either 
meaning. (3) The name dupa is also applied to the Passover which precedes, 
Jos. Ant. ix. 18. 2. 3 (Niese, §§ 263, 271); Bell. ii. 12. 1, iv. 7. 2, so that the 
Azyma includes eight days (Jos. Ant. ii. 15. 1), and the 14th of Nisan could 
be reckoned as the first day of the Azyma (Matt. xxvi. 17; Mark xiv. 12), or 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 207 


even more broadly, simply as the day of the Azyma (Jos. Bell. v. 3.1; Luke 
xxii. 7). (4) On the other hand, the name wdcya is also made to cover the 
days of the Azyma, and the two terms are used quite synonymously, Jos. Bell. 
ii. 1. 3, vi. 9. 3 (where certainly uninformed readers could not infer that the 
feast called the “ Passover” is only a part of the previously mentioned feast 
of Azyma) ; Ant. xiv. 2. 1, xvii. 9. 3, xviii. 2. 2; Luke xxii. 1; cf. Acts xii. 3 
with xii. 4. This wider use of mdoya is evidently found in John ii. 23, 
xvill. 39, perhaps also in xix. 14; and there is clearly no intention of dis- 
tinguishing the Passover proper from the feast of the Azyma in John ii. 13, 
vi. 4, xi. 55, xii. 1, xiii. 1; Luke ii. 41. (5) The rabbis also were quite 
familiar with this usage. The Mishnah tractate no-no» treats of the festival 
of the entire seven days, which as a whole is there called xypn (i. 3) or 
nopn (ii. 2-7). The latter term had entirely replaced the original name 
myon an. Consciousness of the divergence from the original usage betrays 
itself. In Pesachim ix. 5 we read: “ What [is the difference] between the 
Egyptian Passover and the Passover of the generations (7.¢. the yearly Pass- 
over feast)? The Passover of Egypt: it [took place] beginning with the 
10th [of Nisan] (Ex. xii. 3), and it was necessary to sprinkle the lintel and 
the two side posts of the door with a bunch of hyssop (Ex. xii. 22), and it 
was eaten in haste in one night (anx nb»$>); but the Passover of the Genera- 
tions is customary (an\3, custom) for the whole seven [days].” From this it 
follows not only that the learned rabbis used the term nos to include the 
Passover proper and the Azyma, but also that they spoke of the seven days’ 
celebration as “eating of the Passover.” The phrase, “whole seven days,” 
can stand in contrast to nothing save “in a single night.” Moreover, since 
no new verb takes the place of “eating” the Passover in the original celebra- 
tion, this same verb is to be supplied in the second instance also. This same 
usage is found in 2 Chron. xxx. 21f.: ‘ And the children of Israel . . . kept 
the feast of the Azyma seven days with great gladness . . . so they did eat 
throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings 
and making confession to Jahweh, the God of their fathers.” When Bleek 
(Beitrige zur Evangelienkritik, 1846, S. 111) suggests modestly, and Schiirer, 
op. cit. S. 12, claims confidently that, instead of 1b2x» attested by the massorah 
- and without the keri, by the Targum, the Peshito, and Jerome, the correct 
reading is 1b9» (LXX ouveréAeoav), they fail, in the first place, to show that 
nba (“to complete”), followed by an object such as 1p, an, etc., means any- 
where in the O.T. or even in late Jewish literature, to celebrate a feast. In 
the second place, they have not given due weight to the fact that witnesses 
mentioned above for the reading “they ate” are very much stronger for the 
usage of the Jews of Palestine among whom John belonged than for the 
usage of the Alexandrian translators. If this reading were a later correction 
of the original reading preserved in the LXX, then it only goes to prove that 
the expression “to eat the seven days’ feast” (i.e. the Passover, called a 
potiors a “seven days’ feast”) was much more familiar among the Jews than 
the expression “to complete,” 7.¢. to celebrate a feast of seven days, which 
occurs nowhere else. The expression dayety ro macyxa, in this broader sense, 
is no more peculiar than Josephus’ Ovopev €oprny mdoya xadovvres, Ant. ii. 
14. 6, xvii. 9. 3, infra, and the corresponding 6voia for the entire observance 
of the 14th of Nisan, or also of the seven days, Bell. vi. 9. 3. The only 


298 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


difference is that the latter expression represents classical usage (@vew ra 
Avcaa, Xen. Anab. i. 2, 10; rovs yduous, Philostr. Vita Apoll. vii. 7; see 
Bebber, S. 55, and the lexicons), whereas gayeiv rd mdoxa represents Jewish” 
usage, which John everywhere follows more closely than does Josephus. 
Jewish idiom is peculiar in a very broad application of the idea “to eat,” 
e.g. “to eat the years of the Messiah,” Bab. Sanhedrin 98); “eat up widows’ 
houses,” Mark xii. 40; “to taste death,” John viii. 52, etc. ; cf. Bebber, 8. 55 ; 
and it was very natural to speak thus broadly of the Passover, because the 
act after which the whole observance was loosely called was a meal, and 
because the sacrificial meals as well as the eating of unleavened bread were 
characteristic of this feast. On the other hand, the regular technical expres- 
sion for the celebration of the 14th of Nisan is not dayeiv but woveiy ro 
maoxa, Ex. xii. 48 ; Num. ix. 2,5, 6, 10, 12-14; Deut. xvi. 1; Matt. xxvi. 18; 
Heb. xi. 28. In the celebration of the Passover, eating is only one feature 
along with the 6vevv, and is never mentioned unless the more general expres- 
sion movety or Ove has preceded, or unless the Passover has been previously 
spoken of ; Num. ix. 11; 2 Chron. xxx. 18; Matt. xxvi. 17 (cf. vv. 1,5; 
Mark xiv. 12) (cf. vv. 1, 2,-12a);*Luke xxii. 11, 15 (cf. vv. 1, 7, 8): 
The full expression dayeiv ro wacya is found in the LXX, including the 
Apocrypha, only once; 2 Chron. xxx. 18 (épayov 76 dhacéx, here, as the con- 
text indicates, xxx. 1-22, probably in the broadest sense) ; in Philo and in 
Josephus, so far as the present writer is aware, it never occurs; in the N.T. 
(besides John xviii. 28) five times of the participation in the Passover meal. 
But it is very improbable that the Jews, z.e. the high priests and their ser- 
vants (xvili. 35, xix. 6), whose excuse to Pilate is given in John xviii. 28, had 
in mind only the evening Passover meal and not also the earlier slaying of 
the lamb, which on the morning of the 14th of Nisan had not yet taken 
place, when they spoke of being prevented from participation by defilement. 
(6) Of less importance is the question whether, in Deut. xvi. 2 (2 Chron. 
xxxv. 7-9, cf. 3 Esdr. i. 8f., are left out of account), the cattle for the 
Shelamim as well as the sheep or goats for the Passover meal are covered by 
the expression nop. Certainly here, where it is not a question of the usage 
of the time of Josiah or Moses, but of the time of John, it is wrong to say 
with Schiirer, 8. 14: “The fact simply is that according to the author of 
Deuteronomy not only smaller animals but also cattle could be used for the 
Passover proper.” Because for the Jews of the time of Jesus, who knew 
nothing of the modern criticism of the Pentateuch, Ex. xii. 3-5 made this 
interpretation of Deut. xvi. 2 “simply” impossible. In his account of the 
Jewish interpretations, Schiirer, S. 17f., constantly confuses the manner in 
which the rabbis understand the word nos in the text, and the manner in 
which in their effort after exact interpretation they use the same word in their 
comments. Leaving out of account the merely hypothetical consideration of 
the possibility that, according to Deut. xvi. 2, it was allowable to use cattle 
for the Passover proper—naturally the possibility has not been considered 
seriously—all the above mentioned interpreters agree that in the text the 
word nop includes the animals for the Passover sacrifice and the Passover 
meal and the animals for the Chagigah; but in order to make this clear, 
naturally it was necessary to employ the more definite expression and to say 
“small animals for the Passover, cattle for the Chagigah.” 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 299 


§ 68. PURPOSE AND METHOD, CHARACTER AND 
READERS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


At the close of his book, John states very clearly its 
purpose, just as Luke does in his dedication ; at the same 
time, however, John goes on to speak of the means by 
which he endeavoured to accomplish this purpose (xx. 30 f.; 
ef. xix. 85). As was unavoidable in a brief concluding 
sentence, both these statements are so general that it is 
necessary to seek in the book itself some more definite 
information, in particular, to draw certain conclusions from 
the means used with reference to the author’s purpose. 

From among a large number of onpeta which Jesus did 
in the presence of His disciples, John sets forth a few in 
order to lead the readers whom he addresses to believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, to the end that 
they, believing this to be the case, may have life in the 
name of this Jesus Christ. We have already seen (above, 
p. 207 f.) that it was not His intention to convert Jews or 
Gentiles to the Christian faith through a written missionary 
sermon. ‘The readers were already believers—confessors 
of the name of Christ (cf. i. 12), a Church with which the 
author was acquainted and on intimate terms, or a group 
of such Churches who needed to be furthered and strength- 
ened in the faith which they already had; just as Jesus 
by constantly bearing new testimony to Himself endea- 
voured to strengthen His disciples and also such as had come 
to have a certain faith in Him and yet could not be called 
His disciples (viii. 30f, cf. ii. 22, vil. 31, x. 38, xi. 45, 
xii. 11) in the faith which they confessed when they first 
came into contact with Him (i. 41, 45, 49), in order that 
this faith might become unalterably fixed, and so to deepen 
this faith that it might develop into an independent and 
experiential knowledge of the truth revealed in Him (ii. 11, 
ayao0—42, Vi. 451,69, vill. 32,.x. 38) x1. 15, 42, xu. 19, 
xiv. 1-11, xvi. 30-88, xvii. 8, xx. 8, 24-29). Only in this 


300 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


way do believers become disciples of Jesus in the full sense 
of the word (viii. 81; cf. xiii. 35, xv. 8) and win the free- 
dom, the peace, the joy, in short, the life which is 
transmitted from the only-begottten Son of God to those 
who become children of God (i. 12) through Him (viii. 32, 
Oot. x. Q8ioxive 27, xv. 11; xvi.33,. xvivd f, 8,0 loan 
xx. 29), There is no greater human distinction than to 
become a disciple of Jesus’, and through His mediation 
attain to God (vi. 46, xiii. 16, xiv. 6, xv. 5, 8). But this 
is also a goal which the believer can attain only step by 
step. Itis the mission of Jesus and of the Spirit whom He 
will send to further them toward this end (xiv. 26, xvi. 
12 ff., xvii. 26); the apostles also are called to share this 
teaching work (xv. 27). Itis John’s purpose to fulfil this 
mission in the case of the believers for whom he writes by 
giving his own testimony, in order that they may share 
the same blessed experience as himself (xix. 35, xx. 31; cf. 
16; 1 John 7. 34). 

The fact that the book was intended for believers, whom 
it is designed to confirm in this manner, gives it an esoteric 
character which distinguishes it from the Synoptics, and 
especially from Luke. The detailed account of the dis- 
courses at the Last Supper is not the most unmistakable 
evidence that John is writing for the instruction of 
believers. More significant is the fact that he chooses as 
the subject of his account a number of signs which Jesus 
did before the eyes of His disciples (xx. 30). It is self- 
evident that Jesus’ constant companions were eye-witnesses 
of all His miracles. In view of this, it is all the more 
certain that the remark means that for the most part the 
author contemplates the onueta from the point of view of 
Jesus’ self-revelation to His disciples and for their sake. 
Naturally, however, this does not lessen the significance of 
these onueta—especially of those which are not related, but 
only summarily mentioned—for all those who witnessed 
them and for the progress of the history (ii. 28, iii. 2, iv. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 301 


45;-y. 20; 36, vi. 2, 14, vii. 21, 31, x. 25-38, x1. 47, xii. 
10, 37, xv. 24). 

The entire book, from i. 14 onwards, is in keeping with 
the emphasis laid in xx. 30 upon the significance of these 
signs for the disciples. The very first utterances of Jesus 
of which an account is given are wonderful proofs of that 
profound knowledge of the human heart, transcending all 
the limits of sense by which He won His first disciples 
(i. 42-49), while as a title to all that follows stands the 
promise to Nathanael and to the entire group of the first 
six disciples that in the companionship of Jesus they shall 
experience greater things, and learn from a multitude of 
deeds that God who rules in heaven has put at the disposal 
of the Son of Man upon earth all the angel powers by 
which He Himself rules the world (i. 50f.). The result of 
the first of these experiences is declared to be simply that, 
in consequence of this revelation of the glory of Jesus, His 
disciples believed on Him (ii. 11), notwithstanding the fact 
that there were other witnesses besides the disciples, e.g. 
the mother of Jesus, who certainly was not indifferent and 
must have witnessed the miracle. In other words, the 
disciples were confirmed in their faith. While it is true in 
the case of the second and third miracles which are related 
(iv. 46-54, v. 1-18) that the disciples are not mentioned, 
in the first case one who is already a believer is stimulated 
by a rebuke of Jesus’ to greater faith. In vi. 5 ff. again it 
is clearly described how the faith of those who believe in 
Jesus is tested and strengthened. While the multitude 
see signs and yet do not see (vi. 14, 26, 30, 36), the miracle 
of the feeding and of Jesus’ walking on the water make 
the disciples able not only to bear the discourse of the fol- 
lowing day, but in the light of its promises to rise to a 
joyful confession. With one sad exception this was true of 
the Twelve, while other disciples, who were not really dis- 
ciples, deserted Jesus (vi. 60-71). The healing of the blind 
man is introduced as a means of instruction for the disciples 


302 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ix. 1-5); and in the case of the man who was healed, it is 
to be observed how, under the impression of the deeds of 
Jesus, his open-minded understanding is developed from 
stage to stage. At first the Lord isa man named Jesus 
(ix. 11), then a prophet (ver. 17), certainly not a sinner, 
but a man from God (vv. 25, 30-33), and finally the Lord, 
to whom he kneels in faith and prayer (vv. 35-38). 
While the raising of Lazarus is an important event in the 
concluding days of Jesus’ life (xi. 45-53, xii. 9-11, 17-19), 
the principal thing described is the significance of this 
deed and the circumstances accompanying it for the faith 
of His disciples (xi. 15; cf. the whole of vv. 4-16), the 
women who believed on Him (xi. 3, 20-40), and the larger 
group of those who were receptive (vv. 42, 45). Where 
the Lord is, who Himself is Resurrection and Life, sickness 
and death and the grave must lose their terrors (xi. 4, 11, 
23-27, xii. 1, 2, 9). He who makes the dead to live can- 
not Himself remain in death. In chap. xx. it is not so 
much Christ’s own glorification that is described, as the 
convincing of two souls that He who was dead was alive. 
This helps to explain why John, more than any other 
of the evangelists, gives us character sketches of Jesus’ 
disciples—both of those who were intimately and those who 
were more remotely associated with Him (above, pp. 209, 
224, n.4). He gives accounts of conversions which have a 
wholly individual stamp, often with a few strokes of his 
pen, sometimes, however, at length. The genuine Israelite, 
Nathanael, who comes to Jesus with mockery upon his 
lips, but who, when he perceives that his heart is known, 
pours forth words of earnest confession, with the result 
that he never leaves Jesus again (i. 45-50; cf. xxi. 2); 
Philip, cautious, slow of speech and understanding (i. 43— 
45, vi. 5-7, xil. 21f., xiv. 8-10; above, p. 224); Thomas, 
melancholy, disinclined to any easy optimism (xi. 16, xiv. 
5, xx. 24-29); Nicodemus, who at first comes to Jesus by 
night because he is afraid of the light, and afterwards 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 303 


alone of all his colleagues has the courage in the Sanhedrin 
to demand fair treatment for Jesus; and at last, when the 
most trusted of Jesus’ disciples deny and desert Him, con- 
fesses himself a follower of the crucified Jesus (iii. 1-21, 
vii. 50-52, xix. 39); the Samaritan woman, who, in spite 
' of her sinful past and the wilful spirit which she manifests 
at first, becomes an earnest believer (iv. 7-42); the para- 
lytic, whose own sin had evidently brought upon him an 
incurable disease (v. 5-15); and the man who without any 
fault of his own was born blind (chap. ix.); the two sisters 
in Bethany, so different in type (xi. 1—xii. 8); and Mary 
Magdalene, who made up for her lack of knowledge by her 
self-sacrificing love (xx. 1-18),—all of these are incom- 
parably described, and, without any express effort to bring 
out the fact, are instructive illustrations of the divine 
leading and of human development out of darkness into 
light, and from faith to faith. They were drawn, not by 
the herald of the gospel proclaiming his message to all 
peoples, but by the pastor devoting Himself to the human 
souls committed to Him, and who by these pictures de- 
signed to increase the faith of those who were already 
believers and to make them true disciples. 

It necessarily impresses one as peculiar that both in 
xx. 30 and in the retrospect of the whole of Jesus’ public 
testimony in xil. 37, His deeds are the only recognised form 
of His testimony to Himself, and that these are declared 
to be the contents of this book ; whereas in reality the dis- 
courses not only occupy much space, but in many ways are 
emphasised as important. Although on the authority of 
i. 50 f. it is possible to reckon sayings like 1. 48, iv. 16 (29) 
or prophecies like ii. 19, vi. 70, xii. 32f. (xviii. 32) among the 
onweia, the author understands the word as applying only 
to the miracles (ii. 11). Consequently it is evident from 
xx. 30f. that he does not regard the deeds as a sort of 
customary adornment of the Redeemer, or as an occasion 
for profound discourses which are really the more import- 


304 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


ant things. There are only a few deeds to which long dis- 
courses are attached (namely, v. 17-47, vii. 19 ff. attached 
to v. 1-16, and vi. 26-71 attached to vi. 3-13); while 
other deeds of Jesus no less striking are left to speak for 
themselves (ii. 1-11, ix. 1-38, xi. 1-44). This is true not 
only of the few which are formally related, but also of the 
many which are summarily mentioned. ‘These works, as 
they are often called by John without any further quali- 
fication (n. 1), distinguish Jesus from the Baptist, who was 
the witness by water and word (x. 41). Since Jesus 
works only in dependence upon God, in fellowship with 
God, and by means of the angel-powers at His command 
(v. 19, 30, xi. 41f,1. 51), these works are a work of God 
Himself (xiv. 10), or a participation of Jesus in the work 
of God (v. 17-23, ix. 8f.). To the extent, however, that 
God permits these works to happen through Jesus and 
through Him alone (xv. 24, x. 41, vil. 31), they are God’s 
own testimony concerning Jesus (v. 36f., x. 25, 87f., xiv. 
11), which renders unbelief without excuse (xii. 37, xv. 24), 

John’s use of the O.T. and Jewish word onueia to 
designate the miraculous deeds of Jesus regularly and 
much more frequently than the other evangelists (n. 1), is 
not intended to indicate that they are regarded by him 
either exclusively as symbols or as prophecies. The con- 
ception is broader. The onpeia are events which point be- 
yond themselves to the cause of which they are the effect, 
to the person of whom they are the acts, to the unseen 
events of which they are the symbols, to the future events 
of which they are the prophetic preludes. In these strik- 
ing acts of Jesus the entire work of God, itself invisible— 
in the completion of which Jesus has become an active 
participant—is visibly manifested (ix. 3 f,, cf iv. 34, v. 36). 
The healing of the blind man, just before which Jesus 
makes the statement of ix. 3, He Himself transforms into 
a symbol, a real allegory which He afterwards interprets 
(ix. 89-40). In the same way the miraculous feeding 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 305 


becomes to Him a prophetic symbol of a still more wonder- 
ful feeding (vi. 27 ff.). The healing of the sick foreshadows 
the subsequent awakening of the dead, and the cases where 
Jesus raised the dead during His earthly ministry are at 
once symbols of the Se rening of the physically dead by 
Jesus at the last day (v. 20-26, vi. 39, xi. 23-27). 

Along with this high valuation of the miraculous deeds 
of Jesus are found opher words which seem to lessen their 
value. In order that faith in Jesus, and the blessings, 
primarily invisible, which are mediated by Him, may 
strike root at all among men, faith must be preceded by a 
vision of the witnessing of Jesus to Himself through 
deeds, which show Him to be the “ Saviour of the world” 
sent from God (iv. 42), ue, by a Oewpeiv, OcdicOas, épav 
ed, 32—-34589, 46; 51, 11-11, tv: 19, vi. 86,40, xi. 45, 
xiv. 9, xx. 6, 8, 20, 27). ‘To those, however, who have 
not lacked this opportunity, and who, nevertheless, de- 
mand a sign so as to be exempted from the act and the 
work of faith (vi. 26-31), the sign is denied (ii. 18, vi. 
30). With those who through the signs have obtained a 
certain faith, but do not receive the testimony concerning 
the moral and religious conditions of salvation, it is im- 
possible for Jesus to enter into more intimate relations 
(ii, 23f., ii. 11, 32). Moreover, persons otherwise well 
disposed, but who constantly demand new signs as if 
they had a right to do so, are earnestly reproved (iv. 48, 
xx. 27). The conception of the sign is such that it is 
designed to render itself unnecessary. The Gospel, which 
is intended for readers who have seen none of the signs of 
Jesus, concludes with the blessing of those who have not 
seen, but nevertheless have believed (xx. 29). But the signs 
are not without value even for those who have not seen. 
They need to be related. If the discourses occupy more 
space in the Fourth Gospel than the signs, it is to be 
remembered that as a rule the commentary is longer than 


the text, which nevertheless remains the more important 
VOL, II. 20 


306 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thing. The author's written testimony concerning the 
onueia which Jesus did in his presence, is designed as a 
substitute for what the readers lack, as compared with the 
author, and is intended to enable them to believe as he 
believes (xix. 35). Since, however, he was writing for 
Christians who already had considerable knowledge of the 
gospel history, and who, of the Gospels which have come 
down to us, were certainly familiar with Mark, probably 
also with Luke, and perhaps also with Matthew, although 
only through oral translation (§ 67), it was only natural 
for John to choose from the abundance of reminiscences at 
his command such onyeia with the corresponding dis- 
courses as the readers had not yet become acquainted 
with through the other Gospels. 

Nothing could be more incorrect than to attribute to 
_ the author, as his principal design, instead of the purpose 
mentioned in xx. 31, the supplementing of the Synopties. 
But the circumstances under which he wrote were such as 
to make it natural for him actually to supplement the 
earlier Gospels by the insertion of parallels to their 
accounts, by explanatory remarks which corrected mis- 
understandings to which these accounts were naturally 
open, by formal corrections (above, pp. 256 ff., 270 f.), but 
primarily by such entirely new information as was calcu- 
lated to render more intelligible the picture, obtained 
from the Synoptics, of the course of the gospel history as 
a whole and of many of tts details. With reference to 
the first point, from what the Synoptists relate from the 
last days of Jesus’ life, it is impossible historically to 
understand the origin of the deadly hatred of the Jewish 
authorities toward Jesus, which led to His crucifixion. 
John explains the catastrophe. Such accounts as the 
official embassage from Jerusalem to the Baptist (i. 19), 
the visits to Jerusalem with the attendant constant con- 
flicts with the Jewish authorities (ii. 13 ff., v. 1 ff, vii. 
1 ff., x. 22), the repeated resolutions of the Sanhedrin and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 307 


of the Pharisaic party, which in some instances led to 
attempts upon Jesus’ life (v. 16, 18, vii. 1, 18, 25, 30, 
45-52, viii. 28, 37, 59, ix. 13, 22, x. 39, xi. 8, 46-50, 57, 
xii. 9-11, 19), the raising of Lazarus and the retrospec- 
tion of the entire public testimony in Jerusalem in xii. 
37-43, give the idea of an intelligible development which 
it is impossible to derive from the Synoptics. The rocdxus 
of Luke xiii. 34, Matt. xxiii. 37 (above, p. 173, n. 8) is 
elaborated by John. There are single points also in which 
John’s narrative serves to explain the synoptic account. 
The call of the fishermen to become fishers of men (Matt. 
iv. 18 ff; Mark i. 16 ff.) is psychologically incompre- 
hensible without the assumption of previous familiarity 
on the part of those called with the person and intentions 
of Jesus. How they obtained this acquaintance we read 
in John i. 35-51. The treachery of Judas, which in the 
Synoptics falls like a thunderbolt from heaven, we learn 
from John vi. 70, xii. 4—6, xi. 2, 11, 18-30, xvi. 12: 
Xvili. 2-5, was Jong in preparation, and connected with 
Judas’ earlier attitude among the disciples. The reference 
of Isa. xl. 3 to the Baptist in all the Synoptics is intel- 
ligible if he applied the saying to himself (John 1. 28), 
and it is not strange that the disciples of John understood 
the figure in Matt. ix. 15, Mark ii. 19, if their master had 
used it to represent his relation to Jesus (John iii. 29). 
The historical occasion for the accusation of Jesus in Mark 
xiv. 58, xv. 29, Matt. xxvi. 61, xxvu. 40, Acts vi. 14, is 
to be found only in John ui. 19. This and other things 
are the incidental, if not altogether unintentional, results 
of the method which circumstances compelled the author 
to use, especially of his eclecticism in the choice of 
material. The purpose of his book is proved to be that 
already noted, namely, the confirmation and furtherance 
of the readers in the faith which they have confessed. 

But this faith in which it is John’s purpose to confirm 
his readers he states in the terms of the common Christian 


308 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


confession, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of 
God (xx. 31). It is the old message which the readers 
have heard ever since their first contact with the gospel 
(1 John i. 5, iii, 11), and which stands at the very fore- 
front in all the gospel testimony concerning Jesus. Even 
the Baptist testifies, “I am not the Messiah, but Jesus 
is” (i. 20, 25f, 33 f, i. 28f.). Those who were the 
first to leave John in order to become disciples of Jesus 
used this title to express their new faith (1. 41, ef. vv. 45, 
49); and the author, who was one of these disciples, in the 
passage where he gives the account of this event, retains 
the form which the title had in his native language, 
although it is necessary for him to translate it for the 
readers (n. 2). John uses also the archaic titles ‘The 
Chosen One” and “the Holy One of God,” which had 
hardly yet been taken up into the language of the Church, 
and hence disappeared from the text in the common tra- 
dition (n. 2). In the same way Jesus maintains the con- 
nection with the O.T. and the people of Israel. Although 
Jesus is the Saviour of the world (iv. 42, ef. i. 29, iii. 14 ff, 
xii. 47, xvii. 2, 17 ff), nevertheless salvation is of the 
Jews (iv. 22). Not until after His death and exaltation 
is it possible and is it His desire to exercise His world 
calling in its full compass beyond the boundaries of Israel 
(x. 14-16, xii, 23-32), For this reason He quickly 
withdraws from the Samaritans who willingly receive 
Him (iv. 40, 43), and refuses to receive the Greeks (xii. 
20 ff.). Although His enemies taunt Him with being a 
Samaritan (viii. 48), and believe it possible that He may 
seek safety in the Greek diaspora and preach to the 
Greeks (vii. 35), which would be equivalent to self- 
destruction (vii. 22), nevertheless He rémains a Jew 
(iv. 9, 22) and faithful unto death to His own people, 
the race of Abraham. For He is the one promised in 
the O.T. (i. 45, v. 39, 46f.), the King of Israel (i. 49, 
xi. 13), the Good Shepherd predicted by the prophets — 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 309 


(x. 1-10), ze. the Sovereign of His people, to be distin- 
guished from the usurpers of the throne,—the Herodian 
family, foreigners who obtained their power through craft 
and violence,—and from such bandits as Judas the Gali- 
lean (x. 1, 8, 10), and from other false Messiahs who 
were yet to come (v. 43). His kingdom, like Himself, did 
not originate in the world, and in the realisation of the 
same He makes use of no earthly powers (xviii. 33-37). 
The scorn, however, with which Pilate, notwithstanding 
this avowal of Christ, that His kingdom was not of this 
world, calls Him the King of the Jews (xviii. 39, xix. 8, 
14, 19 f.), represents the full truth. The Jews themselves 
were compelled to confess that He had so spoken of Him- 
self (xix. 21), and only by the betrayal of their Messianic 
idea to the heathen (xix. 15) was it possible for them to 
destroy Him in whom this idea was fulfilled. In spite of 
the protest of the Jews, it is proclaimed to all the world in 
the language of the people from whom Jesus sprang, in the 
language of the world-ruling Romans and in the language 
of the Greeks,—the common bond between all civilised 
peoples,—that the crucified Jesus is the king of the Jews 
(xix.19f.). The confession to which “all flesh,” 2.¢. the 
entire world, is to be brought in order that they may receive 
eternal life from Jesus, is, besides the acknowledgment that 
the Father of Jesus is the only true God, the confession of 
Jesus whom He has sent as the Messiah (xvii. 2 f.). 

When in xx. 81 (cf. xi. 27) we find, in addition to the 
Messianic title, the expression 6 vids Tod Geod, it is nothing 
new. Neither in the Synoptics nor in John is this title 
synonymous with 6 Xpioros. Just as the combination of 
these two titles in Matt. xvi. 16 presupposes the con- 
fession of Matt. xiv. 33, which is based upon an experi- 
ence of the supernatural greatness of Jesus, so the con- 
fession of John i. 49, in which mention of the divine 
sonship precedes that of the Messiahship, is based upon 
the overwhelming experience which had come to one of 


310 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the first disciples of Jesus through the wonderful witness 
of Jesus to Himself. 

This confession of the divine Sonship is capable of 
being deepened ; not, however, by the use of 0 povoyerys, 
a title which John uses both with and without vids to 
describe Jesus (n. 3). For this simply affirms that Jesus 
is the Son of God in the full sense of that word. Like 
6 vids alone (ili. 385f., v. 19ff., vill. 35, cf Matt. xi. 27; 
Luke x. 22, cf. Matt. xxi. 38) or 6 vics rod Geod (John ix. 
35, xi. 4; Luke xxii. 70), it serves to distinguish Him 
from the children of God who become such only through 
His mediation (i. 12, xii. 36) and through a second birth 
(iii. 83-8). Although in xx. 17 Jesus makes parallel His 
original Sonship and the derived sonship of His disciples 
with a definiteness not to be found in the Synoptics, 
calling them His brethren in the same context, neverthe- 
less the specific distinction remains. This is true also in 
the Synoptics, which, to put the matter briefly, never 
represent Jesus as combining the ideas of “my Father” 
and “your Father” in an “ our Father,” for the Lord’s 
Prayer is not a prayer which Jesus prayed Himself, but 
one which He taught His disciples. Since John uses the 
word povoyevys for the first time in the sentence in which 
he declares that the Logos became flesh (i. 14), and in 
very close connection with the sentence which, according 
to the common text, deals with the divine sonship 
wrought by Jesus in those who believe on Him (i. 12 f.), 
but according to the original text treats of the begetting 
and birth of Jesus without the assistance of a man (i. 13, 
above, pp. 266, 288, n. 7), there is no doubt that John 
calls Jesus the povoyenjs, the Son of God in a unique sense 
because of this wonderful entrance into human life. 
Jesus is from birth what other men become through 
regeneration, and by nature what they are by grace—a 
thought which finds expression in various ways elsewhere 
in the Fourth Gospel (n. 3). By i. 18, even according to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN ee 


the Textus receptus, the physical fatherhood of Joseph is 
excluded ; but, according to John as well as.the Synoptics, 
during Jesus’ lifetime His divine Sonship as opposed to 
His descent from Joseph was not the subject either of 
teaching or confession. Those who first confessed that 
He was the Son of God regarded Him at the same time as 
the son of Joseph (i. 45). To others who, because they 
are acquainted with Him, think they know all about His 
origin, it is simply said that they are in error (vi. 42, vii. 
26 f., vii. 14, 57f.). As is proved by the prologue of 
John and the birth stories of Matthew and Luke, at the 
time when all these Gospels were written it was com- 
monly believed by the Church that Jesus was not the son 
of Joseph; but neither John nor the Synoptics make this 
a part of the teaching of Jesus. 

John does, however, show an advance upon the other 
evangelists when he represents the Baptist and then Jesus 
as testifying with constantly increasing clearness His pre- 
existence and His eternal being with God, His sending 
forth, origin, and descent from heaven to earth. The é« 
Geod yevynPAvar, without which no man can become a child 
of God, took place also in Jesus’ case, since He entered 
into the human estate; but for Him it was an é&€pyecOa 
mapa or é« Tod matpos (xvi. 27 f.), the incarnation of one 
who was eternal and whose divine Sonship involves His 
being God. It does not follow, however, that what the 
Baptist recognised prophetically (i. 15, 80) was recognised 
by Jesus’ disciples from the beginning. It is a long way 
from the confession of the sincere Nathanael, od « 6 vids 
rod Gcod, who at first mocked, to the confession of the 
sincere Thomas, 6 xvpsds ov kal o Oeos ov, who at first was 
unwilling to believe. What heretofore had escaped from 
Jesus’ heart in excited and often in obscure language He 
did not state in unmistakable terms to His disciples until 
on the last evening (xvi. 24-30). The development of faith 
from the first (i. 45-49) to the final confession (xx. 28) of 


312. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the disciples is proof of the truth of such sayings of Jesus 
as iii. 21, xvili. 87. It is the way, the goal of which John 
desires that the readers of his Gospel shall not fail to 
attain (xx. 81). How anxious he is that this shall be the 
case is evidenced in the prologue, which begins with the 
affirmation of the eternal being of Christ with God. 
Moreover, in the course of this prologue he represents the 
Baptist as bearing testimony (i. 15) in the same words as 
are used in i. 30, where they are recorded for the first 
time in their historical connection, and the prologue con- 
cludes with a confession of Jesus as the “ only-begotten 
God” (i. 18, n. 8), an expression which seems self-contra- 
dictory. This and not “ the Logos doctrine” is the thing 
peculiar to the Fourth Gospel, and indeed the only new 
thing in the representation of the person of Jesus as com- 
pared with that of the Synoptics (n. 4). 

It would be possible to speak of John’s Logos doctrine, 
or of a Logos doctrine in the Gospel of John, only in ease 
John formally identified the Logos which was familiar to 
the readers (i. 1) with Jesus the Christ (1. 17), or in case 
he formally stated that Jesus Christ whom the readers 
know is the divine Logos, or an incarnation of it, and if by 
the unfolding of the conceptions involved in one or the 
other of these propositions he went on to make some 
further statements about either the Logos or Christ. 
But nothing of this kind is found in the prologue (n. 5). 
Although the historical name of the Redeemer does not 
occur until i. 17, any reader at all acquainted with the 
gospel history would understand when he read i, 6—13, if 
not before, that the author was speaking of Jesus; since 
the Baptist’s testimony was concerning Jesus the Christ, 
not concerning a being called “ Logos” or “Light” (i. 7 £.), 
and since the name on which the children of God believe 
is none other than the name of Jesus Christ (i. 12, ef. 
ii, 23, il, 18, xx. 31). In i. 4-5 also the only possible 
subject is Jesus. When and while He dwelt upon the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 313 


earth He and He alone was the light of men (i. 4, cf. vili. 
12, ix. 5, xi. 35f., 46, ii. 19). Although He may not be 
the light now in the same sense, nevertheless the light 
which He was is not entirely lost, but continues to be 
manifested in the children of light (xii. 36), in whom He 
lives by word and spirit and who are in Him (xv. 5, 7, 
Xvl. 7-15, xvii. 8, 17, 23). Nor has the dark world in 
which this light has long been shining (1 John ii. 8) and 
in which it still shines, been able to overcome and extin- 
guish it (1.5). Throughout the passage, 6 Adyos like 7d 
fas is a name applicable only to the historical Christ. 
Even assuming that the proposition, ‘“ Christ is and is 
called the Logos,” may contain a logos doctrine,—in the 
nature of the case a Christian Logos doctrine,—this doctrine 
is not expounded but presupposed in the prologue. From 
the simple designation of Christ as Logos, even if this be 
found in an independent statement (n. 5), the existence of 
a Christian Logos doctrine cannot be inferred any more 
than a Christian doctrine of light can be inferred from 
John vii. 12, ix. 5, xu. 46, or from the numerous sug- 
gestive designations of Christ an equal number of doctrines 
bearing these distinctive names (John vi. 35, 48, 51,—x. 
11,—xi. 25,—xiv. 6,—xv. 1,—Col. 1. 27, ii. 2,2 Cor. iv. 4; 
Col. i. 15). Such an inference would be justified only if 
it were known that the Christians of that time derived 
further propositions from the identification of the Logos 
with Christ, or of Christ with the Logos, which would 
then likewise be silently taken for granted in the prologue. 
Certainly in the prologue nothing is deduced from this 
identification only presupposed of Christ with the Logos. 
The original existence of the Logos with God and its 
divine nature are not derived through a definition or 
development of the Logos idea; they are simply affirmed. 
Since essentially the same expressions (vill. 58, xvi. 5, ef. 
xii. 41) recur as utterances of Jesus concerning Himself 
without any connection with the name of the Logos, the 


314 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


statements of i. 1 would have exactly the same meaning, 
if their subject were 6 Xpioros instead of o Adyos. This is 
the language Paul would have used (n. 5). The idea of 
the creation of the world through Christ (1. 3) is expressed 
in the Fourth Gospel only in this one passage, but is 
found elsewhere in the N.T. without any discernible 
dependence upon the Logos idea (1 Cor. viii. 6; Col. i. 
15-17; Heb. i. 2f.; Rev. ui, 14). Consequently, there 
is no basis for assuming that John derived his statement 
from the Logos idea, or, on the other hand, that he called 
Christ the Logos because this was one of the articles of 
the common Christian faith. He does not in any way 
intimate that this was the case; and if this thought had 
been in his mind he would certainly have repeated the 
name of the Logos in i. 3, in order to direct the readers’ 
attention to Gen. 1.3; Ps. xxxui. 6,9. That John does 
not regard the name of the Logos as a mine of speculative 
ideas is evidenced by the fact that the prologue does not 
contain any such ideas, and more especially by the fact 
that from i. 4 onward the Logos idea is replaced by that of 
light, and the former idea does not recur until i. 14, and 
then nothing is said which could have been derived from 
the Aoyos conception. 

~— We conclude, then, that in the prologue no Christian or 
non-Christian Logos doctrine is expounded or presupposed, 
but that the author assumes that the readers are familiar 
with the term Adyos as a designation of the Christ. The 
question then arises how this usage originated, and why 
John employs it in the prologue. He does not represent 
Jesus as using it, nor is there any obvious basis for it 
anywhere in the Fourth Gospel (n. 5). On the other 
hand, we do find the term used in two other writings of 
John’s which confirms what is apparent from the pro- 
logue, namely, that the name was in more or less common 
use in the Church circles where these writings originated. 
In 1 John i. 1 the term o Adyos ris fwhs is used to describe 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 315 


not the gospel preaching, but the personal centre of that 
preaching—the person of Jesus, who, on the one hand, is 
without beginning, and, on the other hand, one whom the 
disciples heard speak, whom they saw walk and act, a man 
whom it was possible to touch, whom they perceived with 
all their senses. This eternal person is the eternal life, 
and as such has existed eternally with the Father. But 
because this life has issued from its silent abode with 
God, appeared in tangible form among men and become 
manifest to them, it can be called the ‘“ Word of Life.” 
In His own person Christ is the eternal life (John xiv. 6), 
and consequently the life which became visible and which 
could be heard is “‘the word of life.” Hence 6 Adyos is a 
designation, not of the pre-existent Christ as such, but of 
the incarnate Christ (n. 6). 

In Rey. xix. 11-16 John is represented as seeing 
Christ coming from heaven to judgment with the insignia 
of royal and judicial power (n. 7). In this vision He 
bears one name related to the work He had come to do at 
this time (ver. 16); also afiother, inscribed apparently on 
His diadem, which no one knew but Himself (ver. 12, ef. 
ii. 17). John saw this name inscribed on the diadem, but 
could not decipher it, hence was unable to express it. 
This means that for human thought and speech there is 
no term suited to express the entire significance of Christ 
and His being which is fully known only to Himself. But 
it is impossible for men not to give Him names, in which 
the attempt is made to express this thought. The name 
6 Noyos TOD Oeod (ver. 13) is one such attempt. It will be 
observed that John does not see or hear the name in the 
vision, but that he simply remarks at the close of the 
description of the personal appearance of Christ that this 
name was given to Him. It was the name used for Christ 
in the Church, and He was so called when it was desired 
to express in a comparatively comprehensive way what 


He is and what He signifies. He is the Word of God 


316 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


expressed in the world. His person represents completely 
what the numerous revelations of God by word are in 
part. The attributes of truth and trustworthiness belong 
to Him, just as they do to these revelations (xix. 9, 
xxi. 5); but because He is a person they are expressed by 
a proper name (xix. 11, cf. 1 John i. 9, v. 207). The 
fact that Christ revealed the Word of God as a faithful 
witness (Rev. i. 5, ili. 14) is only one way in which He 
proved Himself to be the Word of God. He Himself is 
“the Amen,” or, as we should express it, ‘‘the Amen in 
person,” 2.e. God’s solemn declaration of His will and of 
His thought toward men (Rev. 11. 14, n. 8). He is not 
an amen or @ word, but, since God has revealed Himself 
finally and definitely in Christ (Heb. i. 1), the Amen and 
the Word of God. This thought is not without analogies 
in N.T. writings other than those of John (n. 8). 

This is the conception which we have in the Fourth 
Gospel. The general presuppositions and analogies are 
found here in the words of Jesus Himself. Jesus is the 
life, but also in His own person the truth (xiv. 6, xi. 25), 
the visible manifestation of God (xi. 45, xiv. 7-10), and 
He supplies men with the knowledge of God necessary to 
life, not simply through the words which He speaks as a 
teacher, but also through His deeds, 7.e. during His earthly 
life He is the light of men (ix. 4—5, vil. 12, xii. 35f., 46). 
He distinguishes Himself from all the official representa- 
tives and mediators of divine revelation who came before 
Him by affirming that, whereas they became what they 
were for other men through some word of God that came 
to them from without, He in the whole compass of His 
life is the one consecrated by God for His mission to men 
and sent by Him to fulfil it (x. out). 

If, as the prologue taken in connection with 1 John 
i. 1, Rev. xix. 13 proves, 6 Adyos had come to be used 
along with other terms to designate Christ in the region 
where John lived, manifestly not without his influence, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 317 


the comprehensiveness of the term made its use parti-_ 
cularly appropriate in the prologue which describes in 
large outlines the history of Christ and the revelation 
accomplished by Him; from the eternity out of which He 
sprang to the present when He has returned again to God, 
when, however, the body of those who believe on Him, 
the heirs of His grace, the guardians of the knowledge of 
God brought into the world by Him, continue to exist in 
a world which is without this knowledge. Christ is here 
represented as throughout the Gospel and in Revelation 
as the indispensible witness of the truth and revealer of 
the knowledge of God which no man can derive from him- 
self (i. 18, cf. ii. 11, v. 37 f, vi. 46, xviii. 37). But His 
relation to the God whom He reveals is different from 
that of all other bearers of the divine revelation. Not 
only had He seen God before He appeared as His only- 
begotten Son; He is Himself @eés (i. 18). While the 
revelation of the law was transmitted through the hand of 
Moses to other men, the grace and truth of God with 
which Jesus Himself was filled has become through Him 
an historical reality (i. 17, cf. xiv. 16). His person is the 
complete revelation of God to men, consequently “the 
Word” per se. 

The question how the term o Aoxyos (Tod Oeod, Tijs Sahs) 
came to be used as a general expression, gathering up the 
early Christian conceptions of Christ which otherwise were 
unconnected, and how it came to be used as a proper name, 
we are unable to answer by tracing its history, just as we 
are unable to answer many similar questions; for the 
reason that we know practically nothing of what was 
taught in the Church. It is conceivable historically that 
the apostle John may have become familiar in Jerusalem 
with the Greek speculation, the first representative of 
which, so far as we know, was Philo; since there was a 
synagogue of the Alexandrians in Jerusalem, and many 
Hellenists in the membership of the mother Church 


318 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(vol. i. 60f. n. 8). It is also possible that Alexandrian 
Jews, like Apollos, brought such ideas to Ephesus (Acts 
xviii. 24). If only someone could succeed in showing a 
real connection between Philo and John! John’s con- 
ception of Christ is not Philo’s conception of the Logos, 
the Platonic idea of ideas, the plastic world-soul of the 
teachings of the Stoa. It would be more natural to 
suppose that the teaching concerning the memra current 
among the rabbis was utilised by the Christian teachers 
in expressing their ideas concerning Jesus. But apparently 
this term could be used only if the pre-existent Christ 
were thought of as the mediator of the Old Testament 
revelation as well as of the New. But no traces of this 
idea are to be found in John, even where it might be 
expected (v. 37-47, vill. 52-58, xii. 37-41). Probably, 
therefore, the expression is to be explained as one which 
grew up in the late apostolic age out of the above-men- 
tioned roots embedded in the soil of the Christian Church. 

If John had applied to Christ a Logos speculation de- 
rived from non-Christian sources, and under its influence 
had attempted a higher conception of Christ, inevitably 
the clear figure of the man Jesus would have faded away 
like a shadow and been distorted into ghostly form. In 
reality the opposite is the case. No one of the Gospels 
presents a picture of Jesus which in all essential respects 
is so entirely human as that of John. Jesus is weary with 
His journey (iv. 6); confesses that He is thirsty (iv. 7, 
xix. 28); weeps at the grave of His friend (xi. 35); 
cherishes friendships with individuals, which can have no 
direct connection with His redemptive work (xi. 3, 11, 36, 
xili. 23, xx. 2). When dying He made provision for the 
temporal well-being of His mother (xix. 26). Just’as He 
is deeply stirred and even moved by a feeling of anger at 
the desolation which death had been permitted to bring 
into the home of a friend, especially because He Himself 
by His delay had been responsible for this victory of death 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 319 


(xi. 33, 38), so He is profoundly shaken by the thought of 
His own approaching death, and in a state of doubt and 
uncertainty seeks to be assured of the divine will regard- 
ing it (xii. 27), which he had long known (viii. 21-29). 
He can do all things only as He depends upon God (v. 19, 
30); the Son of Man requires the aid of God’s angels, in 
order miraculously to testify that He is the Son of God 
(i. 51). All His miracles are done in response to prayer 
(xi. 41). He is and continnes to be the studious pupil of 
His Father (v. 30, viii. 26, 40, xv. 15). However far and 
deeply He is able to see into human hearts and into the 
dark recesses of the future (n. 10), this is no proof of a 
native omniscience, but is a gift of God in accordance with 
Jesus’ vocation, a manifestation of the Spirit which He has 
received for His work (i. 32 f.). Like other men, He is in- 
formed of things which He Himself does not witness (iv. 1,xi, 
3-6), or draws inferences from what He does witness (vi. 15). 
He asks questions, not simply in order to test others (vi. 6), 
but in order to find out what He does not know (xi. 34). 
Even in the case of His official work, His knowledge is sub- 
ject to growth, and thus (temporarily) limited, with the re- 
sult that His decisions to act are subject to change (n. 9). 

Nor can this thoroughly human representation of 
Christ—in comparison with which there is little in the 
Synoptics which gives so naive and so clear an impression 
—be explained as the remnant of an older view, which 
the author himself had transcended. On the contrary, 
this is the image of Jesus which lives in his thought,.and 
which with loving devotion he pictures before the eyes of 
his readers. However important he may regard it that 
they believe the Jesus to be the Christ and the Son of 
God, he does not, like Matthew, picture the Christ (n. 10), 
indeed very seldom calls Him “ Lord,” as is frequently 
done by Luke (vol. ii. 476 ; above, pp. 91, n. 21, 249), and 
in all his statements about Him makes the subject the man 
Jesus. That this is not only the natural reflection of his 


320 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


view of Jesus, but his conscious purpose in the Gospel, 
is evidenced by i. 14. The language is strong. He who 
from eternity was God (i. 1), and who in every aspect did 
not cease to be God (i. 18, 33-36, n. 3, xx. 28), became 
jlesh—appeared as flesh. It is clear, even without the 
light thrown upon the passage by the Epistles, that this 
language, which, in comparison with Phil. 11. 7, Rom. vii. 
3 is so very harsh, can be explained only in the light of 
another and contrasted view of Jesus. Just as the 
humanity of Christ is emphasised here, where His entrance 
into the human estate is described, so in the account of 
the end of His life strong emphasis is laid upon the reality 
of His death. It is true that the two details, namely, 
that Jesus’ legs were not broken, and that He was pierced 
with a spear after His death, are important in the eyes of 
the author as fulfilments of prophecies (above, p. 217); 
but in comparison with the earlier accounts of the cruci- 
fixion these facts are in themselves new and significant. 
The legs were left unbroken, only because the soldiers 
were convinced that Jesus was already dead, and it was 
the doubt of one of the soldiers as to this fact that led to 
the piercing of the side. Even if the soldier’s doubt were 
well grounded, the piercing of the side with a spear would 
have caused death. Apparently both to the soldier and 
to the narrator the issue of blood and water was evidence 
of the disintegration of the blood which had taken place 
after death. It is in connection also with this entire trans- 
action that the narrator introduces the solemn assurance 
that he is an eye-witness whose account is in accordance 
with the truth (above, p. 219 ff.). When it is further 
remembered that no other Gospel gives such circumstantial 
historical proof that the grave was empty (xx. 1-13), or 
records the way in which Thomas was convinced of the 
reality of the body of the risen Jesus, and of the identity 
of this body with the one which was crucified (xx. 24-29), 
it becomes clear beyond question that John’s purpose is to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 321 


fortify the faith of his readers against doctrines which 
questioned the reality of the incarnation and death of 
Jesus. According to Ivenzeus, this was the teaching of 
Cerinthus. But the Epistles must be investigated before 
definite conclusions can be reached on this point. 

There is still another direction in which John seems 
to show a polemical purpose. If the author is the un- 
named companion of Andrew ini. 35 ff., there is nothing 
peculiar about the fact that he reports in detail and with 
strong emphasis the Baptist’s testimony concerning Jesus 
which brought Andrew to Jesus (i. 6-9, 19-36, iii. 27-36, 
v. 38-36, x. 41). Nor is it strange that outside the 
narrative, in a form other than that of an _ historical 
notice, he should represent this as a testimony given in the 
present, and thus valid for the readers, as he does when he 
puts it among the statements regarding the experience of 
himself and of his fellow-disciples who companied with 
Jesus (i. 15). This would all be satisfactorily explained 
by the purpose indicated in xix. 35: wa «al ipets mo- 
tevnte. In other words, that you as well as I and my 
fellow-disciples may believe, you as well as the pa@nrys 
(xix. 26) and his cuppanta/ (xi. 16), who were disciples 
as well of the Baptist as of Jesus. But this does not 
explain the marked emphasis with which from the very 
beginning of the Gospel both the author and the Baptist 
_ himself deny that John is the Messiah or the Light of Life 
(i. 8, 20-27, 30-33, iii, 28-30). The temptation which 
John had to represent himself as the Messiah he honourably 
and steadfastly resisted (i. 20), and rejected all other 
titles which in the confusion of Jewish ideas about the 
person of the coming Messiah might be interpreted as 
implying a claim to the Messianic dignity, or equality with 
the Messiah (i. 21, 25, n. 11). The only office which he 
claims is that which Isaiah represents under the figure of 
a voice, the subject of which remains entirely undefined 
(i. 23). His work is great, but is entirely in the service 

VOL, Il. 21 


322 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of his incomparably greater successor, whose origin is from 
eternity, and of the greater work which He came to do. 
They are related to each other as water to spirit, word to 
deed. Hence John must recede into the background, as 
Jesus, the bridegroom of the bride, the Messiah of the 
Church, comes into prominence. He does it without envy 
and willingly, even with profound joy as the friend of the 
bridegroom (iii. 27-36); while Jesus in His turn fully 
recognises John’s calling (v. 35), classes him with Himself 
as a true witness (ili. 11), declares that for the time being 
John’s baptism with water is just as necessary as the future 
baptism with the Spirit (iii. 5; cf. the contrast 1. 33), for a 
time practises it through His disciples (ii. 22, iv. 2), and, 
in order to avoid the appearance of rivalry, even gives up 
this work as soon as He sees that it may interfere with the 
activity of the Baptist (iv. 1). While, therefore, perfect 
harmony existed between John and Jesus, and not a few 
of John’s disciples, accepting his testimony concerning 
Jesus and following his suggestion, left him in order to 
become henceforth disciples of Jesus (i. 35-51), and while 
many who heard John believed on Jesus later (x. 42), 
there were other followers of John who remained with 
him, refused to join themselves to Jesus, and in the spirit 
of envy endeavoured to stir the jealousy of their master 
against Jesus (iii. 26). But He who came from above, and 
so is above all (11. 31), has no rival. Although John was 
a lamp which burned for a long time but was finally 
extinguished (v. 35), he is not @ light of the world to be 
compared with the only one who is the Light of the World. 
Rather is he one of those who in obedience to a divine 
command exercised a calling limited both in time and scope 
(x. 85); nor has he any of the glory of the onueia (x. 41) 
which distinguished Jesus as the Christ and the Son of God 
(xx. 30f.). . Just as John declares his entire subordination 
to Jesus, so Jesus also, when He has occasion to point out to 
the Jews their hostile attitude toward Himself from the be- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 323 


ginning of His ministry as contrasted with their favourable 
reception of John, states clearly that by the divine witness 
He is declared to be greater than John (v. 36; see §69, n. 1). 
Not taking into account at all the Synoptics, in which scarcely 
any of this historical material is to be found (Luke iii. 15 f., 
v. 33-39, xi. 1; Matt. ix. 14-17; Mark ii. 18-22), from 
the manner in which the relations between John and Jesus 
are set forth—strongly emphasised even in the prolorue— 
one is compelled to infer a polemical purpose on the part 
of the author. Among those in the circle about John 
there must have been some who attached overmuch import- 
ance to the personality of the Baptist, and who denied the 
definite distinction between him and Jesus. We have not 
sufficient historical knowledge to set forth, concretely, de- 
finitely, and with entire certainty, this fact which appears 
from the Fourth Gospel. But it is natural to assume that 
the after effects of the wrong attitude which some of the 
Baptist’s disciples took toward Jesus were connected with 
or helped to give rise to the movement which the author 
opposes by his strong emphasis upon the incarnation, the 
truly human life and death of Jesus, and His bodily resur- 
rection. There are also indications that it was in Ephesus 
especially, where, according to all the tradition, the Fourth 
Gospel originated, that the influences of the work of the 
Baptist continued to be felt, the connections of which 
with apostolic Christianity were ambiguous (n. 12). 

This leads us to consider, finally, the question as to 
the nationality and home of the original readers of the 
Fourth Gospel. That they were familiar only with the 
Greek language is evidenced by the fact that the writer, 
who is fond of retaining the Hebrew or Aramaic form of 
the names of persons and things, translates them into 
Greek regularly at least the first time they are used, 
sometimes also in the second instance—i. 38 (cf. 1. 49, 111, 
2, 26, iv. 31, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8), 1. 41 (the second time in 
iv. 25), i. 42, ix. 7, xi. 16 (again in xx. 24, xxi. 2), xix. 13, 


324 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


17, xx. 16. In only one instance does he leave the name 
of a place untranslated, and this name is of significance to 
himself because of the meaning of the word (v. 2, vol. i. 
28, n. 15). Names of feasts and holidays lke wrdcya, 
cdBBarov did not need to be translated, because they had 
long since passed over into Christian usage ; others, like 
oxnvorrnyla (vil. 2), éyeaiwa (x. 22), are given directly in 
their Greek form, the meaning being clear from the 
words themselves. With words like dump (i. 51), dcavva 
(xii. 18) the readers were likewise familiar from their own 
cultus or the earlier Gospels. They are not familiar with 
Jewish customs and cultus practices, nor with the 
geography of Palestine. The author tells them that the 
usual route from Judea to Galilee led through Samaria 
(iv. 4, n. 13). The readers do not appear to know that 
Cana is in Galilee (ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, 54), nor are they 
familiar with the location of Bethany on Jordan (i. 28, x. 
40), and of the other Bethany near Jerusalem (xi. 1, 18). 
Ephraim in Judea (xi. 54) is quite as unknown to them as 
Sychar in Samaria (iv. 5). He informs them for the first 
time that there is a pool in Jerusalem called Bethsaida 
(v. 2). To designate the Lake of Gennesaret, John uses 
% Oddacoa THs Tadidaias, which was to be found in Matt. 
iv. 18, xv. 29; Mark i. 16, vil. 31, and was therefore, 
perhaps, familiar to his readers. However, out of regard 
for them, who, because of their unfamiliarity with the 
geographical situation and the Jewish custom to call an 
inland lake also a sea, might have misunderstood his 
reference, he adds the other name of the Lake, 7 T:Bepsds 
(vi. 1, n. 14). Because the readers are accustomed yearly 
to celebrate a Christian Passover lasting for one day, and, 
on the other hand, know that the Jews, some of whom 
must have resided in their vicinity, celebrated the feast 
for several days, John uses the expression, ‘‘ Passover of 
the Jews” (ii. 13; cf. vi. 4, xi. 55) in order to call their ~ 
attention to the fact that Jesus’ first sojourn in Jerusalem 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 326 


covered an entire week (11. 23, iv. 45). With the feast of 
Tabernacles they may have been familiar (vii. 2). It is 
necessary, however, to inform them that the last day was 
celebrated in Jerusalem with special solemnity (vil. 37); 
likewise that the Sabbath which fell within the Passover 
period was observed with special strictness (xix. 31). It 
is necessary at least to remind them that on Friday 
evening, just before the beginning of the Sabbath, Jews 
were unable to take an extended journey, even in 
order to bury a corpse (xix. 42). The presence of the 
large water jars in Cana he explains by reminding the 
readers of the custom of the Jews as to purification, with 
which perhaps the readers were familiar, but which they 
did not practise (ii. 6). Special attention is called to 
the particular manner in which the Jews bury their dead 
(xix. 40), in part at least because one feature of this 
description is to be noticed again in xx. 6. Probably it is 
John himself and not some glossator who remarks in iv. 9, 
in explanation of the conversation which there takes place, 
that the Jews and Samaritans are accustomed to hold no 
friendly intercourse with one another (n. 13), which makes 
the meaning of viii. 48 clear without any comment. 

In a word, then, we conclude that the original readers 
of John were Greek Christians remote from Palestine. 
There is nothing which contradicts the tradition that they 
lived in the province of Asia. Assuming that the Gospel 
was written by the apostle John, this is proved with cer- 
tainty by the date of the composition of the supplement 
(§ 66) and of the entire Gospel (§ 69), for at this time 
John was resident in Ephesus. This was also the seat of 
the unsound tendencies against which we have seen the 
Fourth Gospel to be directed (n. 9; cf. also § 69, n. 9). 


1. (P. 304.) John uses onpeiov regularly only of the deeds of Jesus 
(indirectly also in the negative statement of x. 41). He has the word 18 
times ; whereas in Matt. it is found only 6 or 7 times, in Mark only in viii. 
11-12, and in Luke, omitting the parallels (xi. 16, 29-30), only in xxiii. 8 ; 
Paul uses it more frequently. It is appropriately used in the sense of mx, in 


326 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Ex. iv. 8f., 17, for the demand of the Jews for some miraculous evidence of 
God’s approval of Him whom He sent (John ii. 18, vi. 30; cf. 1 Cor. i. 22). 
John never uses Suvduers, SO common in the Synoptics, and in addition to the 
word onpeia (once connected with répara=prodigia in a passage where Jesus 
reproves the half faith which seeks confirmation by miracles, iv. 48) uses only 
épya in an equivalent sense, v. 20, 36, vii. 3, 21, x. 25, 32, 33, 37, 38, xiv. 10—- 
12, xv. 24. The only other passage where épya is used in this sense is Matt. 
sak YH 

2. (P. 308.) Concerning Meooias, John i. 41, iv. 25 (nowhere else in the 
N.T.), see vol. i. 20f. There is nothing peculiar about the use of the word 
by the Samaritan woman. For even if the Samaritan title for the Messiah 
anna (the “Restorer”; cf. Cowley in the Expositor, 1895, March, p. 165, in 
opposition to Merx and Hilgenfield) does go back so far, this woman who 
remarks upon the religious differences between the Jews and the Samaritans 
must have known the Jewish name, and could have employed it in conver- 
sation with the Jews. Concerning 6 éxXexrds rod Geod, i. 34, see above, 
p. 284n.2. Both this title and 6 dys r. 6., vi. 69 (NBC*DL), have been 
replaced by 6 vids r. 6. (Sc and the old Latin versions), more frequently 
preceded by 6 Xpuords (so also in Ss) and followed by rot ¢@vros. Matt. xvi. 
16 was preferred to Mark i. 24; Luke iv. 34 (cf. Acts iii. 14, iv. 27, 30). Cf. 
also John x. 36, xvii. 19. John uses also 6 Xpuords 14 times, "Inoods Xpiords 
twice (i. 17, xvil. 3), once Xpiordy (ix. 22), as a predicate. Mention may be 
made also of 6 Bacideds rod “Iopand or rev "Iovdaiwy (above, p. 309), and 
Gre €Ao eit, Vill. 24, 28, where 6 Xpiords, or a synonym, must be supplied. 

3. (Pp. 310, 312.) The stately tone of the English phrases “The only- 
begotten” (John i. 14) and “ The only-begotten Son of God” (iii. 16,18; 1 John 
iv. 9) is lessened when we remember that every only son is spoken of in this 
way (Luke vii. 12, viii. 42, ix. 38; Tob. iii. 15; Clem. 1 Cor. xxv. 2 of the 
Phenix). The word is used to translate vm and vn ja in Judg. xi. 34; Ps. 
xxii. 20 LXX ; Gen. xxii. 2; Jer. vi. 26 Aquila ; Heb. xi. 17 (6 idsos vids instead 
in Rom. viii. 32). But since the same expression is usually translated in the 
LXX by dyamnrods (Gen. xxii. 2,12, 16; Zech. xii. 10; Jer. vi. 26, see also the 
variant reading in Judg. xi. 34 (it follows that dyamnros in Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 
5; Mark i. 11, ix. 7, xii. 6 (€va . . . vidv ay.); Luke iii. 22, xx. 13; 2 Pet. i. 
17 (cf. Col, i. 13), is synonymous with povoyerns in John. It may be con- 
sidered as proved that the correct reading in John i. 18 is povoyevns beds 
without 6 (not 6 povoyerns vids) ; cf. Hort, Two Dissertaivons, 1876 ; GK, i. 736, 
Forsch. i. 122. The following is the sense of the two affirmations of i. 1 and 
i. 14: One, who was God, and therefore One who in His essence is and con- 
tinues to be God, since He cannot cease to be God, and who at the same time 
by reason of His incarnation is God’s only Son, has revealed to us men the 
God who otherwise cannot be known. In x. 33-88 also the conception of the 
Son of God is such as to include His divine being. Not only the accusation 
of the Jews, but also the scriptural proof adduced by Jesus, show that He 
called Himself God—a claim which the Jews repudiated, but which Jesus 
held to be justified. When in x. 36 Jesus calls Himself “Son of God” 
instead of God, the title is in accord with His matter of fact method of speech ; 
but is so much the less to be regarded as an intentional weakening of what 
He has just proven from the Scriptures, namely, His right to call Himself 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 327 


God, since in Ps. Ixxxii. 6 “gods” and “sons of the Highest” are used inter- 
changeably. Because His consecration to His calling coincides with His 
sending into the world or even precedes it, He is in person and vocation the 
Son and the Holy One of God (x. 36, cf. vi. 69). But since the consecration 
and the sending presuppose His existence, that is to say, His supramundane 
and ante-historic existence, His Sonship of God includes His deity. Every- 
thing He possesses, even life itself, is a gift of God, and yet possessed by Him 
as God Himself possesses it ; in other words, He does not, like created beings, 
find the conditions and means of life outside Himself, but in Himself. For 
this reason also he has the Godlike power to impart His life without Himself 
losing it, v. 26, vi. 57. 

4, (P. 312.) Valentinus, the Gnostic (above, p. 176), and Justin, “the 
philosopher,” were the first to discover in the prologue a Logos doctrine, or 
rather they were the first to read the doctrine into the prologue. That this 
was not the way in which the original readers understood the prologue is 
evidenced by Ignatius, earlier than either Justin or Valentinus, and the first 
clear witness for the Fourth Gospel, when, in Magn. viii. 2 he writes: “God 
is one, who has revealed Himself through Jesus Christ, His Son, who is His 
Word proceeding out of the silence, who in all things was well-pleasing to the 
one who sent Him” (Patr. Ap. il. 36, 201, also editions of Lightfoot and 
Funk). Consequently the man Jesus is called the Word of God, because, after 
a long silence, in Him, His Son, God finally spoke clearly and audibly to 
men, revealing Himself not only through Jesus’ teachings, but equally 
through His deeds (cf. Ign. ad Eph. xv. 1). As to His person, Jesus is “the 
infallible mouth, by which the Father has truly spoken” (ad Rom. viii. 2), 
the yvwpn of the Father (ad Eph. iii. 2), the yvdous of God (ad Eph. xvii. 2) ; 
ef. Zahn, Ignatius von Ant. 8. 382f., 472f. Traces of this early Christian 
“Logos Doctrine” are found elsewhere, e.g. in the “ Kerugma of Peter” in 
Clem. Ecl. Proph. 58 (vopos kat Aoyos atros 6 cwornp héyerac), and in later 
writers ; cf. the writer’s Hirt des Hermas, 8S. 147f. The one-sided tendency 
to consider only the name of the Logos and not the many similar titles found 
especially in the Fourth Gospel, such as Truth, Light, Life, etc., is appropriately 
condemned, especially by Origen, in his Commentary on John, tom. i, 21-39. 
The opinion which, notwithstanding this protest, has remained prevalent no 
one has expressed more unfortunately than Keim (Gesch. Jesu i. 125): 
“ Cannot all the flesh and blood in this history be explained from the philo- 
sophy which sits at the entrance and distributes the admission tickets and the 
programmes ?” 

5. (Pp. 312, 313, 314.) To be compared with the lack of all explanation of 
the readers’ familiarity with the use of 6 Adyos as a name for Christ, which 
familiarity is presupposed in the prologue, is the manner in which Paul 
connects with Christ ideas not directly derived from the gospel history or 
from current ecclesiastical usage (1 Cor. x. 4; Col. i. 27, ii. 2), or lets such 
ideas appear as predicates in sentences where Christ is the subject (1 Cor. 
i. 30; 2 Cor. iii. 17, iv. 4; Col. i. 15; Eph. v. 23), and this peculiarity of 
John may also be compared with Ignatius’ procedure in similar cases (see 
preceding note). In addition to analogies and foreshadowings of the use of 
the name “ Logos” noted in the text and in notes 6-8, special attention is 
called to x. 35 (cf. n. 3, and Luthardt, Das joh. Ev.? i, 273). Where the O.T. 


=e 


328 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prophets are spoken of as those to whom the word of God came (Jer. i. 4; 
Luke iii. 2), and Jesus likewise is represented as having to do with the word 
of God (John vii. 16, viii. 26, xiv. 10, xvii. 6-8, 17), it would seem almost 
necessary that the distinction between them and Jesus should be brought 
out, namely, that this connection with the word of God is original, involving 
His entire personality. But even in x. 35 the author does not attribute these 
thoughts to Jesus. The use of the term in i.1 and i. 14 is mainly responsible 
for the opinion that 6 Adyos in the prologue is a specific name for the pre- 
existing Christ, or for His eternal and unchangeable essence. But it must be 
remembered, first, that the apostolic Church had no specific name for Christ’s 
essence apart from His human manifestation. Even when speaking of Him 
as pre-existing the Church used names applicable to men—Jesus, Christ, the 
Son of God, the Lord, Eph. i. 3f.; Phil. ii. 5f.; Col. i. 13-20; 1 Cor. viii. 6, 
x. 4, 9. In a sentence like John i. 1, Paul would have used 6 Xpcords ; 
according to xii. 41 (cf. ver. 32, viii. 58; Jude 5 (vol. ii. 252 f.)), John might 
have used even “Incods instead of 6 Adyos in i. 1, just as well, however, 7 (on 
(1 John i. 2) or 76 has, 7 dAjnOeva xrr. It showed better taste to put the more 
general name at the beginning, and not to employ the common historical 
names until the passage where Moses, through whom the first revelation 
came to Israel, is contrasted with Jesus, through whom the final revelation 
was made (i. 17). Consequently the use of Adyos in i. 1 indicates nothing as 
to the source whence Jesus derived this name, and as to the length of time 
He had borne it. In the second place, it is just as impossible to infer from 
the use of this name in i. 14 that Jesus was so called apart from His incarna- 
tion and in contrast to it. The name is used here again appropriately because 
in vv. 14-18 the author is about to show fully how far the historical Jesus is 
the complete and final revelation—i.e. the Word—of God. Further, the 
reappearance of 6 Adyos in these verses is for the sake of reference to and 
connection with ver. 1. Just as év r@ kdopw Hv in ver. 10 stands in contrast 
to jv mpos Tov Oedy in ver. 1, so the oapé eyévero in ver. 14 stands in contrast 
to eds jv in ver. 1. No contrast exists between the subject and predicate of 
ver. 14a ; but between the predicates in ver. 1 on the one hand and ver, 14 
on the other hand, given the one and the same subject called 6 Adyos, there is 
a sharp and intelligible contrast. For the concept of the word does not at all 
involve immateriality ; the word is rather thought become perceptible to the 
senses ; the spoken word is audible, it can sound loud or soft, pleasant or 
harsh ; the written word is visible, and when it is cut in stone or printed in 
the blind-alphabet, may be perceived even by the sense of touch. On the 
contrary, the spirit is contrasted to the flesh in John (iii. 6, vi. 63) as every- 
where in the Bible (God, however, is spirit (iv. 24, cf. xxxi. 3)). He, who in 
the beginning was God, and therefore spirit, became flesh, z.e. a man of flesh 
and blood. He became a member of the human race, which John also calls 
maoa odp€ (xvii. 2). It isself-evident that He was not changed into flesh, as 
the water into wine (ii. 9) or the stones into bread (Matt. iv. 3); for He, who 
is God without beginning, cannot in that sense cease to be such a being. 
The correct text of i. 18 states this to excess (above, n. 3) ; accordingly, there- 
fore, there is meant only an exchanging of the one mode of being and form of 
appearance with another, a metamorphosis in the essential meaning of the 
word (cf. Phil. ii. 6f.), by which the identity of the ego is not destroyed. 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 329 


Still less are we to think of such a transformation of the Logos into flesh, by 
which He would cease to be the Logos. For, whatever may be included in 
the name 6 Adyos, it must, however, at any rate be predicated of the one who 
became flesh ; indeed, strictly taken, it may first be predicated of the one 
who has become flesh. One principal reason for the continued misinter- 
pretation of ver. 14 lies in the untenable opinion, that finally at this point 
the transition is made from the representation of the being and activity of 
the pre-existent to the description of the one appearing as man, whereas 
from ver. 4 onwards reference is made only to the one who has become man. 
If one accepts as genuine the text of ver. 13, presented above, p. 288, n. 7, 
it must be fully admitted that this transition is not first made with ver. 14. 
Rather the statement concerning the begetting of Jesus by God without the 
aid of a man is extended by the sentence, that in and with this begetting the 
Logos—which in the beginning and from the beginning until His miraculous 
begetting as man was God—became flesh. 

6. (P.315.) Since in 1 Johni. 1 rév Adyor ris Cwns in the sense of gospel 
(Phil. ii. 16; Acts v. 20) could very easily be connected as a loose apposi- 
tional phrase (cf. Acts x. 37, rd yevduevov pnua) with the four relative clauses 
which are the objects of amayyéAdoper ipiv, the use of the construction epi 
Tod Adyou ths Cams is a positive proof that this connection is intentionally 
excluded. Not the word of life which the apostles proclaim, but the person 
about which their preaching centres, namely, Jesus, is meant (1 John v. 9, 
10; John i. 7, 15, v. 31-46, x. 41, xii. 41, xv. 26; Rom. i. 3, xv. 21; Acts 
viii. 12). In the preceding relative clauses also, this person who always 
existed, all the manifestations of whose life and whose physical qualities were 
sensibly perceived by the apostles with ears, eyes, and hands, is meant, but 
described impersonally and by a paraphrase. All that was audible, visible, 
and tangible which the disciples were able to perceive in their intercourse 
with Jesus, is summed up in the 6 Adyos rijs Cwqs, and, as the change in the 
construction shows, referred back to its centre. The drayyéAXew ra repli rod 
"Inood (vol, ii. 377, n. 2)=drayyéAdeww and paprupeiv mepl “Incov. But the 
personal Logos is not called 6 Adyos rhs Cwns because He gives life, but because 
He has life in Himself (John i. 4), 7.e. is living ; or, as the substitution of 
the idea 4 ¢wy in ver. 2 shows, by means of an appositional genitive, He 
is Himself described as the one who is in person life; cf. John xi. 25, xiv. 6. 

7. (P. 315.) In Rev. xix. 12, ¢ywv dvona yeypappévor 6 has the strongest 
MS. authority (to which S* has been recently added). The reading dvépara 
yeypappéva a is due to the mention of many diadems in the same verse. In 
BS? the two readings are confused. In ver. 13 the present writer considers 
xéxAnrat to be the correct reading. The testimony of the versions as such for 
xadeirat has no great weight. Although in xix. 16 we have the names directly 
connected with the judgment, the name 6 Adyos rov Oc0d, which is outside of 
the vision, is not without reference to the coming of Christ to judgment. 
If Christ did not come, or if He did not conquer and administer judgment, 
then He would not be, what He as the Word of God must be, truthful and 
reliable (cf. xix. 9, 11, iii. 14). 

Be Bi (P. 316.) Although originally an adjective, jpx is never so used either 
in the O.T. (where jox: and pox are used instead) or in the N.T. Conse- 
quently, it is not so used in Rev, iii. 14, where it would be a mere parade of 


330 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


learning, since 6 morés kal ddnOwés immediately follows. . The readers were 
familiar with dyyv only as an adverbial exclamation. Elsewhere, when 
used substantively, rd duyv (1 Cor. xiv. 16; 2 Cor. i. 20) occurs, but-6 duny 
is used here because it is the name of a man. Practically the same thought 
is expressed by the synonym vai in 2 Cor. i. 19. The primary reference is to 
Christ as preached (cf. Rom. x. 5-8). As such He is not at the same time 
both Yea and Nay, but in Him is a Yea which cannot be contradicted. 
Moreover, in relation to the promises of the O.T., Christ Himself is found the 
confirming Yea to all the questions contained in and suggested by prophecy. 
According to Paul, therefore, Christ is a word of God spoken unto the world 
at the end of days, an affirming word, itself in turn confirmed by the Amen 
of the Church. 

9. (Pp. 319, 325.) The contradiction between John vii. 8 and John vii. 10 
early led to a change of the reading ovx dvaB. (SD Sc Ss, etc.), which could 
not have been invented into ovr dvaf. (BL Sah. etc.). Appealing to this 
passage, Porphyrius (in Jerome, c. Pelag. ii. 17) accuses Jesus of inconstantia 
et mutatio. Schopenhauer (Grundprobleme der Hthik, 2te Aufl. S. 225) in 
proving that falsehood is not unconditionally wrong, cites the fact that on 
one occasion “even Jesus Christ intentionally told an untruth.” Something 
of the same contrast is to be observed between ii. 4 and ii. 7f. 

10. (P. 319.) Reference to the fulfilment of O.T. prophecy in the gospel 
history is more frequently made by John (i. 23, 45, ii. 17, 22 [rH ypada], xii. 
14f., 38-41, xix. 24, 36, xx. 9) and by Jesus Himself in the Fourth Gospel 
(v. 39, 46f., vi. 45, xiil. 18, xv. 25, xvii. 12) than by Mark and Luke. The 
point of view, however, is entirely different from that in Matt. In Matthew 
the purpose is apologetic, namely, to prove to the Jews that in the very 
respect in which Jesus was an offence to His people, He fulfilled prophecy 
—when this is rightly interpreted (vol. ii. 560f.) ; on the other hand, John 
does not attempt to refute formally and in detail the objections raised by the 
Jews on the ground of the apparent lack of correspondence between prophecy 
and fulfilment (i. 46, vi. 42, vii. 27, 41f., 52, xii. 34). This contradiction is 
met by the fulfilment in Jesus of God’s plan of salvation foreshadowed in the 
O.T. by example and by word (i. 14, 16, 17, 23, 33, 41, 45, iii. 14, iv. 26, 42, 
v. 39, 46f., vii. 31, ix. 37, x. 11, 35, xii. 37-41), which general position the 
Christian readers of the Gospel accepted, and which is frequently attested 
in the Fourth Gospel without detailed instances. On Him as the agent of 
salvation, God has set His seal (vi. 27), and whoever believes in Him, becomes 
by the change thus wrought in himself a confirming seal of the truthfulness 
and loyalty of God in the fulfilling of His promises (iii. 33, cf. vi. 35; 
1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. iii. 2). So that the agreement between prophecy and 
fulfilment which catches the eye, becomes a matter of great significance for 
the faith of believers. Just as the first disciples were strengthened by the 
discovery of this agreement even after the death and resurrection of Jesus 
(ii. 22, vii. 39, xii. 16, 37-41, xiii. 18, xv. 25, xix. 24, 36f., xx. 9), so here 
references to it are designed to strengthen the faith of the readers. The same 
is true also of the predictions of Jesus Himself (ii. 19-22, vi. 70f., xii. 32£, 
xiii, 19-29, xiii. 38, xvi. 4, xviii. 9, 32) ; to which for this reason the solemn iva 
mnpob; is applied (xviii. 9, 32), as it is likewise to the prophetic testimony 
of the Baptist (x. 41), and even to the unintentional prophecy of Caiaphas 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 331 


(xi. 51). This is the significance also of the prophetic utterances dealing 
with the past and bringing to light the hidden things of the present. Jesus 
is a “seer,” who does not need human intervention in order to know things 
most secret, when His calling demands such knowledge (ii. 24f., iv. 16-18, 
29, 39, 50, 52, vi. 64, 70, xiii. 10 f., 18, xxi. 15-17). Although Jesus rejects the 
dogma that every affliction suffered by the individual is punishment for his 
personal sins (ix. 2f.), in a particular case He does recognise this to be the 
relation of sin to suffering (v.14). It is the inexplicable manifestation of 
such deep, prophetic insight that overwhelms Nathanael and the Samaritan 
woman (i. 47-50, iv. 16-19, 29,38). Is was this insight which qualified Jesus 
to be the Good Shepherd, who knows every member of His flock, calling it 
by name and dealing with it in accordance with its individual character- 
istics (x. 3, 14, 27; cf.i, 42, xx. 16). The way in which John treats prophecy 
and prediction throughout the Gospel proves that he is not like Matthew an 
apologetic historian, much less a speculative religious philosopher, but the 
pastor and spiritual guide of his readers. 

11. (P. 321.) The negative answer in John i. 21, 25 to the question as to 
whether John is Elijah, which in the light of Matt. xi. 10, 14, xvii. 10-13; 
Mark i. 2, ix. 11-13; Luke vii. 27, seems remarkable, is no absolute answer ; 
since in John iii. 28 John speaks of himself as the one prophesied in Mal. 
iii. 1, hence as Elijah (Mal. iii. 23). Moreover, the principal mission which 
ini. 31 he ascribes to himself is, according to the doctrine of the Jewish schools, 
that of Elijah ; cf. Just. Deal. viii. 49 ; Goldfahn, Justin und die Agada, 8.34 f.; 
better Weber, Jzid. Theol. §'77. There is also a strong resemblance between 
John y. 35 and Sirach xlviii. 1. In John i. 21, therefore, the question is 
answered in the negative only in the superstitious sense in which it was asked 
(cf. Matt. xvi. 14, xxvii. 47, 49 ; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, xv. 35f.); on the other 
hand, it is affirmed in the sense of Luke i. 17. John was also obliged in 
i. 21, 25 to answer in the negative the question as to whether he was the 
prophet ; because this idea was used in connection with that of the Messiah, 
without a clear distinction being made between them, and might easily be 
confused with the latter (vi. 14f., vil. 40). 

12. (P. 323.) It is true that in Acts xix. 1-7 nothing is said about 
“disciples of John,” simply disciples being mentioned, 7.e. according to the 
usage of Acts, believing worshippers of Jesus, 7c. Christians. But since 
prior to the time when Paul came to Ephesus they had not received the 
baptism of the Church, and knew nothing of a baptism followed by the gift 
of the Holy Spirit, their Christianity was independent of the Church and 
preceded it. They could have received the baptism of John only from John 
the Baptist himself, or possibly, since we are informed in John iii. 22~iv. 2 
that the baptism of John was used by the disciples of Jesus, from the latter ; 
they had not prior to this time been members of a Christian Church, into 
which no one was received without Christian baptism at the hands of the 
Church. It is not distinctly stated in xviii. 25 that Apollos likewise had 
received the baptism of John, and hence it is not expressly stated that he 
afterwards received the baptism of the Church. But he also represents a 
form of Christianity earlier than the Church (vol. i. 262). When he came 
to Ephesus, he was familiar only with the baptism of John, and therefore 
knew nothing of the Church and its baptism. Moreover, his knowledge of 


332 INTRODUCTION 'TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Christian teaching needed to be completed by Aquila. If these state- 
ments of Luke be correct, then faith in Jesus and a relatively accurate 
knowledge of His history (Acts xviii. 25, dxpy8és) must have reached Alex- 
andria (xviii. 24) and Ephesus prior to the time of Acts ii. 1, 38, and possibly 
even before the death of Jesus, through Jews who in Palestine had come to 
believe the preaching of John the Baptist and the testimony of Jesus to 
Himself, perhaps through visitors at the feasts from the Diaspora (Luke 
xxiii. 26, xxiv. 18; Acts xxi. 25). The danger, which lay in this form of 
Christianity unrelated to the Church, was averted by Paul and his friends 
in the case of the twelve disciples at Ephesus and of Apollos. We do not 
know whether this was true also in the case of all those at Ephesus and 
elsewhere related in the same or a similar manner to Jesus and His Church. 
Whether this happened in the case of the disciples of John in Palestine, who 
in Jesus’ own time kept themselves separate from Him (Matt. ix. 14 ff. ; 
John iii. 25ff.), is even more uncertain. Reference may be made here to 
1 John ii. 19, according to which the connection of certain errorists with 
the Christian Church seems from the first not to have been beyond question. 
Furthermore, it is not at all impossible that the confused statements con- 
cerning a connection between the followers of the Baptist and the semi- 
Christian adherents of Simon Magus and Dositheus have some basis in fact 
(Clem. Hom. ii. 22-24 ; Recogn. i. 54, 60, ii. 7-12). Moreover, the Mandzans 
or Sabians, with their worship of the prophet John, the son of Zachariah, 
and their anti-Christian system are probably only the Eastern descendants 
of a Palestinian gnosis which appealed to the authority of the Baptist, and 
rejected the Messiahship of Jesus, although they may have adopted many 
Babylonian elements into their system. This is not the place in which to 
dispute the assertions of Baldensperger, which overshoot the mark, Der Pro- 
log. des 4 Ev, sein apologetisch polemischer Zweck, 1898. 

13. (Pp. 324, 325.) In John iv. 4, Se (cf. Luke xi. 42, xix. 5, xxii. 7) 
means little more than eos jv in Jos. Ant. xxii. 6. 1, referring to the same 
route ; cf. Bell. ii. 12. 3; Veta, 52 (éa for those who desired to travel 
rapidly), also the remarkable parallels to John iv. in Bereshith Rabba, 
chaps. xxxiii. and lxxxi. (trans. by Wiinsche, S. 141, 398). Jesus Himself 
would have travelled through Samaria on His last journey to Jerusalem, if 
the Samaritans had been willing to furnish Him lodging (Luke ix. 51-56, 
above, p. 89f. n. 19). The strong expression in John iv. 4, which is not, 
however, to be pressed too far, is chosen, in order to emphasise the fact that 
Jesus travelled through Samaria without any intention of working there, 
and met with unexpected success, which astonished even Him. It is uncer- 
tain whether od yap cvvxpvrai “Iovdaior Sapapeiras in iv. 9 is to be omitted, 
with 8*D abe, or to be retained, as in all other MSS. (including the contem- 
porary first corrector of X, also Sc Ss, and probably therefore also Tatian, 
Forsch. i. 159). The classical brevity of the insertion is in favour of its 
genuineness. Strong evidence to the effect that John continued to live entirely 
under the influence of home surroundings and opinions, is to be found in 
the fact that he sometimes omits an explanation, where it would seem to be 
very necessary. To John himself the name Bethesda (v. 2, cf. ver. 42) is 
important, because of the meaning of the word (vol. i. 28, n. 15), and he 
recalls the connection between the ceremony of the seventh day of the feast 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 333 


of Tabernacles and the words spoken by Jesus on this day, vii. 37£.; but in 
neither case does he take the trouble to make these relations clear to his 
readers—who were not familiar with them. 

14. (P. 324.) From the fact that rijs TiBepuddos (xxi. 2) is alone given as 
the name of the Lake, it is probably to be concluded that outside of Pales- 
tine this name was already the better known. When Jos. Bell. iii. 10. 1 
writes, 7 Aiuyy .. ., f) Kadeirae Tevynodp mpos ray émtxyapioy, and Pliny, 
Historia Naturalis, v.71, Pacwm quem plures genesarum vocant, it is equiva- 
lent to saying that alongside of this name another, or many such, were used. 
According to Pliny, loc. cit., the Lake bore among other names also that of 
the town Tarichea. Matthew and Mark use only 4 @ddaoca rijs Tadsdalas, 
although they know Teyvnoapér as the name of the country (Matt. xiv. 34; 
Mark vi. 53). Of the Gospels only Luke in v. 1 has 4 Aiuvn Vevvnoapér ; 
Jos. with or without Aiur, regularly 7 Tevvnodp (Bell. ii. 20. 6, iii. 10. 1, x. 
7 and 8), and in the later writings the Hellenised form 4 Tevynoapis or 
Tevynoapiris, Ant. v. 1. 22, xvili. 2.1 and 3; Veta, 65 (Niese, 349). With 
this, however, we read in his Bell., published between 75 and 79 (iii. 3. 5), 
péxpt THs mpods TiBepidda Aipvns, and (iv. 8. 2) twice 7 TiBepiéwy (sc. Ain), 
corresponding to the Talmudic na» Sw ay, The translation of John is more 
exact than the circumlocutions of Josephus. 


§ 69. INTEGRITY, DATE OF COMPOSITION, AND 
GENUINENESS OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 


One of the principal causes for the degeneracy of the 
text of the earlier Gospels is practically non-existent as far 
as the Fourth Gospel is concerned, namely, the irresistible 
tendency to make similar accounts resemble one another 
yet more closely. The thoroughly distinctive character of 
the Gospel prevented confusion of its text with that of the 
Synoptics. It is more natural to suppose that such details 
as the inscription over the cross in three languages (xix. 20, 
xxiv. 34), the notice of the casting of lots for the coat, and 
the piercing of Jesus’ side with a spear, were inserted in 
the Synoptics (Matt. xxvii. 35, 49; Luke xxii. 38) from 
John, than that John’s Gospel was enriched by citations 
from them, although early changes in the text of John 
made on the basis of the Synoptics are not wanting (e.g. 
i. 34, vi. 69). More frequently changes in the original 
text are due to the boldness of John’s thought or the 
awkwardness of his language (n. 1). There are also early 


334 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


glosses which become widely current (n. 2), and one 
undeniable interpolation which came to be almost uni- 
versally regarded as a part of the Fourth Gospel (vii. 53- 
viii. 11, n. 3). The main reason why the work of the 
original author has been preserved practically intact is the 
fact, it was intended originally for the Church, and so was 
read in the congregations. In this respect it had the ad- 
vantage of the letters sent by the apostles to the Churches 
(vol. i. 159), to which the two addresses to the readers 
which it contains give it a certain resemblance. The 
attempts to distinguish the later elements in the Gospel 
have proved illuminating only to those who have under- 
taken their separation (n. 4), while the assumption that 
disorder of sequence has been created in the Gospel through 
the accidental misplacing and loss of leaves, presupposes 
so many unlikely accidents (n. 5) that attention need only 
be called to it in a text-book. 

The investigation of the supplement (§ 66) has shown 
that this, and consequently the entire Gospel, could not 
have been written after the year 100. With this con- 
clusion agrees the entire Church tradition, which even the 
ancient deniers of the genuineness of the Fourth Gospel did 
not venture to reject (above, pp. 177 f., 180). On the other 
hand, the supplement could not have been written before 
the death of Peter, and we saw that it seemed probable 
that a number of years elapsed after 64 and 70 before it 
was written (above, p. 240f.), a Terminus a quo deter- 
mined wholly on exegetical grounds, but, like the Terminus 
ad quem, confirmed by the unanimous tradition. Now, it 
is possible that, while the composition of chap. xxi. certainly 
belongs later than the year 70, chaps. 1.—xx. were written con- 
siderably earlier. But the history of the book shows that 
prior to the addition of the supplement it was confined to 
a very small group of readers, so that only a short interval 
could have intervened between the composition of chaps. 
j,-xx. and chap. xxi. This conclusion is confirmed by the in- 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 335 


vestigation of the relation of chaps. i—xx. to the Synoptics 
(§ 67), as a result of which we were compelled to bring the 
composition of the entire book down to the year 75, 
probably to some time between 80 and 90. This state- 
ment may be regarded as proved, until the representatives 
of other views discuss more fundamentally than they have 
done heretofore the proofs for the statement derived from 
tradition, the book itself, and comparative criticism. The 
attempt has been made frequently, but manifestly without 
warrant, to prove from the present tense in v. 2 that the 
Gospel of John was written before the year 60 (n. 6). 
Much more frequently a later composition of the Gospel 
has been assumed, always in consequence of the denial of 
its composition by the apostle John. 

That for a hundred years the question of the genuine- 
ness of this Gospel should have been discussed zealously, 
even heatedly, without any resulting agreement among 
otherwise capable critics, is comprehensible and almost 
self-evident (n. 7). The contents of the book and its 
demands upon the reader are too great for it to be other- 
wise. Since the second century we have had exaggerated 
representations of its peculiarities ; speculations and mys- 
teries foreign to it have been found in it; though there 
are not lacking more sober treatments of the Gospel, which 
establish beyond question its unique place among the 
books of the N.T. In this Gospel alone do we find an 
historical scheme of the work of Jesus, which enables us to 
arrange the material supplied by the other tradition, and 
which gives us a picture of the development of events in 
the history of the world of the utmost significance for 
religion, and so for mankind. And this scheme is filled 
out with detail, which to the intelligence limited to the 
things of ordinary experience must seem a prior to be 
merely fantastic inventions, but which through all the 
centuries of the Gospel’s existence have been received by 
multitudes of both wise and foolish men as disclosures of 


336 INTRODUCTION TO 'THE NEW TESTAMENT 


truth essential for life and death, and held to with glowing 
love. Here are deeds which defy every attempt to bring 
them under the laws of action which are daily observed 
and commonly accepted ; sayings of Jesus which cannot 
be derived by inference from other sayings attributed to 
Him by tradition. And all this makes a stronger claim 
to historical trustworthiness than does any other account 
of Jesus’ life. The Gospels of Mark and Luke were put 
forth as the writings of disciples of the apostles, repro- 
ducing not what the authors themselves had experienced, 
but the accounts of others. There is nothing in Matthew 
which indicates a direct personal relation between the 
author and the contents of his book, and not only does his 
book lack clear personal testimony of the author, but there 
is no witness of contemporaries which can be traced back 
to its origin. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel 
contains the personal testimony of its author in the solemn 
form of an oath (above, p. 217 f.), and at its close is found a 
testimony to his authorship and truthfulness written in the 
author’s lifetime by friends of his, and made an inseparable 
part of the original Gospel. 

So long as and wherever Christianity is conditioned by 
what Jesus was, and did, and taught, it will be conditioned 
also by the answer given to the question ccncerning the 
genuineness, and consequently the trustworthiness, of this 
Gospel. Among thoughtful persons there are only a few 
who admit that the book was written by an eye-witness 
and apostle, and yet deny its trustworthiness in essential 
points (n. 8). A writer who makes truthfulness the con- 
dition of all knowledge of the truth and of the possession 
of eternal life (i. 47, iii, 20f, iv. 16-18, xvii. 17, 
xviii. 37), and declares the Devil to be the father of lies 
and deceits (vi. 70, viii. 44, xiii. 2, 27) by every attempt 
made to confirm the personal testimony of i. 14, especially 
by the deceptive retrospect in xii. 87-43, and the solemn 
assurance in xix. 35, would call down upon himself almost 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 337 


unutterable condemnation, if he declared to be deeds and 
sayings of Jesus things which he knew better than his 
eritics Jesus had never done or said. It is not on purely 
scientific grounds, therefore, but out of pure necessity, that 
the majority of those who distrust the historical testimony 
of the Fourth Gospel on internal grounds deny also its 
composition by an eye-witness and apostle, and that others, 
not so decided in their opinions, seek to straddle the 
question of the Gospel’s genuineness, by a reinterpretation 
either of the tradition or of the internal evidence of the 
Fourth Gospel. The scientific grounds for the denial of 
the genuineness of the Gospel, either wholly or in part, 
have been discovered after it has been determined to seek 
them. The arguments derived from the relation of 
John to the Synoptics, on the presupposition that the 
latter are essentially trustworthy, have been answered in 
§ 67 (cf. also § 63). Other arguments based upon a 
comparison of the Gospel with Revelation, on the pre- 
supposition that this is a work by the apostle John, 
cannot be discussed until Revelation has been investigated. 
All the other arguments consist of very questionable 
observations. 

It is true that in many sections the narrative lacks the 
clearness and definiteness which we should expect from an 
eye-witness. While John shares Mark’s tendency to retain 
the Aramaic form of names and addresses (vol. ii. 502, n. 1, 
and above, pp. 807 f., 323; below, n. 13), he lacks Mark’s 
pictorial gift. Scenes which begin with a certain amount 
of definiteness have no conclusion; ¢@g. the passages 
jueok, ye ATo &x, 23, 29, xxi.’ 22 (cf also ii. 20, in. 36) 
end with a saying of Jesus instead of a narrative statement, 
although there is no lack of definiteness in the beginning 
of these narratives (cf. Matt. xxviii. 16-20). In xiv. 31 
nothing is said which indicates that the disciples followed 
the bidding of Jesus to rise from the table and leave the 
meal, or the manner in which they did it ; but in xvii, 1 


VOL, III. 22 


338 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(cf. xi. 41) we notice that at that moment Jesus was in 
the open air. Only by a careful reading of xii. 21-36 do 
we learn that the request of the Greeks was not granted 
(xii. 20). The representation of the course of events in 
vi. 21-24 is very awkward. Where and under what 
circumstances sayings like xii. 44-50, the beginnings of 
which (xii. 44, é«paéev) show that they are not unrelated 
sayings thrown together like Matt. iii. 2, Mark i. 15, were 
spoken, we are not informed. In other instances, where 
the beginning lacks the desired definiteness, the name of 
the place is given farther on in the narrative (i. 28, vi. 59, 
viii. 20). In this the author does not seem to have any 
special purpose, e.g., to answer the question which one who 
heard an oral narrative might ask afterwards as to where 
the event narrated took place. At the same time, we 
notice an accuracy of details and a clearness in the delinea- 
tion of things secondary and unimportant (n. 9) which 
reveals the vividness of the author’s underlying conception. 
In clear characterisation of the persons who appear (above, 
pp. 224 f., 302), and in brief original sayings, which are not 
without a touch of delicate humour and bitter irony (i. 46, 
iv. 15, vii. 3, 28, 35, 48 f.,, 52, viii. 19, 22, 48, 57, ix. 20f, 
24-84, xi, 11, 16, xviii. 31, 35, 88, 39, xix. 5, 14, 19, 22), 
the incidents and conversations in i. 46—50, iv. 6—26, 
ix. 1-41, xi. 1-44, xvi. 29-xix. 22 are without parallel 
in narrative literature. The numerous elements which were 
accustomed to mingle on the occasion of the great feasts 
in Jerusalem (xviii. 20) are clearly delineated : the natives 
of Jerusalem (vii. 25); the multitudes of festival pilgrims 
(vii. 12, 31, 40), who disappeared again (viii. 12—x. 21) 
when it was over (cf. vii. 37); those non-Jews who came to 
the feast (xii. 20); the Pharisees who, notwithstanding their 
contempt for the multitude ignorant of the law (vii. 49, 
n. 10 end), mingle with it, observing the people’s expression 
of feeling and motives, and dispute with Jesus (i. 24, above, 
p. 283. ; iv. 1, vii. 82, 47, viii. 18, ix. 13, 40, xi. 46, xii. 19), 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 339 


in clear distinction from the ruling aristocracy, the high 
priests, who hold themselves aloof (especially vii. 48, 
xu. 42). John is aware that the Pharisaic party is prac- 
tically identical with the guild of the scribes, and dominates 
in the synagogue (iii. 10; cf. vii. 49, xii. 42), although he 
never mentions the scribes (n. 10). He also knows that 
they are represented in the Sanhedrin along with the 
ruling party (i. 1, vil. 47, 50). They have an interest in 
the religious movement set on foot by the Baptist and 
Jesus, which is prompted by religious motives, but they 
are able to take practical steps to regulate this movement 
only by bringing the observations which they have made 
among the people before the Sanhedrin, which then takes 
action, issues orders for arrests, and gives other directions 
(vii. 32, 45, ix. 22, xi. 46-53, 57, xii. 10, xviii. 8, 12-28). 
The moral influence of the Pharisees is greater in the 
Sanhedrin than that of the high priests (xii. 42), but the 
latter have more political courage. It is the ruling high 
priest who suggests that Jesus be got rid of, and how this 
may be done (xi. 49). In similar decisions with reference 
to Lazarus (xii. 10), and in the prosecution of the matter 
before Pilate, in which all law and all of Israel’s religious 
hope were trampled under foot, the Pharisees do not seem 
to have had part. Only the high priests and their servants 
are represented as speaking (xix. 6, 12-15, 21). It needed 
only the skill of an historian, which John lacks, to create 
out of such material a monument of historical art; and it 
needed only a slightly poetic temperament, which John also 
lacks, to transform narratives like chaps. lv. ix. xi. into 
engrossing romances, and to make out of the material in 
chaps. vii. xviii.—xix. a thrilling drama. It is just this lack 
of art, along with accurate knowledge of innumerable small 
details and a correct historical view, which proves that the 
author is a Jewish Christian from Palestine and an eye- 


witness. 
It would require learning, which none of the critics of 


340 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the Fourth Gospel can claim, to convict of ignorance on 
these very points the author, who occasionally informs his 
readers who are not Jews and who do not live in Palestine, of 
the location of places in his native land and of the customs 
of his people (above, p. 324). The opinion that he is 
not well informed with regard to geographical matters (n. 
11) and political conditions in Palestine in the time of 
Jesus (n. 12) cannot be established. It is likely to become 
gradually more and more clear that it is better for us to 
learn from John with regard to these matters, rather than 
to criticise him without knowledge superior to his own. 
As evidenced by the Hebrew and Aramaic words and 
names which he retains, he, like Mark, is familiar with the 
language of his people. Nor does he, in translating these 
terms, make such mistakes as are to be found in the Greek 
Matthew and even in Luke (n. 13), e.g. in his translation 
of the name of Iscariot (n. 11). In his use of the Greek 
language also he betrays his Hebrew origin. While the 
book in respect of vocabulary, grammar, and style has a 
thoroughly unified character, and shows nothing of the 
patchwork of both of Luke’s books (above, pp. 79, 104), 
the character of the language of the Fourth Gospel proves 
with complete certainty that it cannot have been written 
(n. 14) either by a Greek or by a Hellenist in the narrow 
meaning of the word (vol. i. 39 f.). Only a very one-sided 
and short-sighted comparison with certain stylistic peculi- 
arities of the Book of Revelation, such as Dionysius of 
Alexandria made (Kus. H. E. vii. 25. 25 f.), could lead toa 
misunderstanding of this fact. The author’s knowledge of 
the O.T. is not confined to the LXX, which he generally 
follows (n. 15). The peculiar use of the term of ‘IovdSaiou 
has been thought to betray the non-Jewish character of 
the author. However, (1) those passages must be left out 
of account in which the Jewish author informs his non- 
Jewish readers concerning Jewish customs, conditions, and 
feasts which are unknown to them, or which are feasts 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 341 


and customs foreign to their usage (ii. 6, 13, v. 1, vi. 4, 
vil. 2, xix. 40, 42). Mark, who was a native of Jerusalem 
(vii. 3), and Josephus uniformly use the same expression. 
Furthermore, (2) those passages must be left out of account 
where the author or those whom he represents as speaking 
contrast Jews with Samaritans or Romans (iv. 9, 22, xviii. 
35, and throughout the entire section xviii, 31—xix. 21). 
More peculiar is (3) the use of the term for the political 
organisation of the Jewish people and their official repre- 
sentatives. In many passages Sanhedrin might be sub- 
stituted for ot Iovdaio, or it might be replaced hy 76 xouvov 
tov Iovdaiwv, as in Josephus. ‘This is clearly possible in 
meeovat, 135°1x) (22, xvi. 12,94, xix. 81, 88, xx To 
Then connected therewith are (4) other passages where not 
the whole Sanhedrin, but members of it and official persons 
of high rank, such as the commandant of the temple, must 
be understood : ii. 18, 20, v. 10, 15-18, vu. 1, 11, 15 (ef. 
mae 9? vil.-35, vin. 22-31, cf vv. 40, 48, 52, 57, x924 
31, 338, xi. 82). Finally, (5) there are a number of 
passages where the term is used to designate the majority 
of the people who do not yet believe on Jesus, or who are 
already pronounced unbelievers, as contrasted with Him- 
self and the group of disciples gathered about Him, the 
future Church. In addition to the passages placed in 
brackets above, which evidently belong here, are to be 
reckoned in this class x. 19, xi. 19, 31, 33, 36, xii. 9, 11, 
algo vi. 41, 52, where in the course of the narrative, Gali- 
leans, who are increasingly irritated with Jesus, are called 
Jews; likewise vili. 48-57, where after viil. 30, 31 the 
occurrence of the term is surprising, and ix. 18 where it 
seems to be equivalent to Sapicaios, In all these instances 
the narrator is speaking from the point of view of himself 
and his readers, just as the Jew, Paul, does when writing 
to Gentile Christians (2 Cor. xi. 24; 1 Thess. 1. 14; cf. 
1 Cor. ix. 20), and the Jew, Matthew, writing in Palestine 
(xxviii. 15). The first passages which are really peculiar 


342 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


are those in which John represents Jesus as using this 
term in speaking to the disciples (xii. 33; with regard to 
xviii. 20, 36, seen. 16). Even if it could be proved, which 
is not the case, that for the sake of clearness John repre- 
sents Jesus as using a term for His enemies which was not 
used by Christians of Jewish and Gentile origin until after 
the organisation of the Church, it would not at all follow 
that the author was not a thorough Hebrew. Even 
according to the Synoptics, one of the inevitable results of 
Jesus’ contest with Pharisaism and official Judaism was 
His treatment of His disciples as a body of men separated 
from Israel (Matt. v. 11f., x. 16-42, xvi. 17-21, xvii. 24- 
27, xviil. 15-20, xxi. 40-46; Luke xii. 32). But inas- 
much as John sets forth the entire development of the 
contest with official Judaism in Jerusalem, intimating it 
in i. 19 and entering into it fully from ii. 13 onwards, we 
find in his Gospel severe words which do not occur in the 
Synoptics. John also represents Jesus as acknowledging 
the absolute authority of the Scriptures, which justify His 
claims (x. 35, v. 39, 46, xiii. 18, xv. 25); Jesus never 
admitted that He had broken the law of Moses (v. 17-47, 
vii. 19-24); it is not simply among Samaritans that He 
feels Himself a Jew (iv. 22). He delights in true Israel- 
ites, whose king He is (i. 47, 49), and is faithful to His 
own people (i. 11) even unto death (above, p. 308). But 
when in opposition to Him who holds the law to be sacred, 
they appeal to their law, or plead their descent from 
Abraham against His religious and moral demands, or 
meet His offers of grace with declarations of what Moses 
gave to their fathers (v. 45, vi. 31, viii. 33 ff.), He gives 
them back their own language, and says, “your father” 
(vi. 49), “your father Abraham” (viii. 56), and “your 
law” (vill. 17, x. 84, xv. 25). All this is in keeping with 
the prophetic announcement from the beginning. Anyone 
who is unable to comprehend historically such words 
spoken by a messenger of God in the struggle with His 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 343 


people must necessarily regard Isaiah as opposed in prin- 
ciple to the whole temple cultus (Isa. i. 10-20), and must 
explain such words as those of the Baptist in Matt. ii. ° 
7-9, Luke iii. 7-8 as inventions of the Gentile Christian 
Church. 

The naive manner in which John mentions the 
friendly relationship between himself and Jesus, and sub- 
stitutes it for his personal name, which is never employed, 
has been criticised. With reference to this point, it is to 
be observed that the modesty characteristic of modern 
writings is no more a certain guarantee of the correctness 
of their contents than the naiveness of ancient writings is 
of theirs. There is not a word in the Fourth Gospel that 
gives the impression of self-exaltation, such as Paul does 
not seriously attempt to avoid in 1 Cor. xv. 10 and else- 
where. What the author as briefly as possible says of 
himself in xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, could have been said 
equally well by Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, who were not 
distinguished persons (xi. 3, 5, 11, 36). Such a personal 
friendship is not conditioned by an exceptionally high 
grade of moral and religious qualities. There is no 
evidence of any prominent position occupied by John 
among the disciples. Apart from the statement of his 
call in i. 35 ff., unnoticed by many, John does not let him- 
self appear until xiii. 23, whereas reference is made to the 
future significance of Peter for the Church as early as i. 42 
(cf. xxi. 15-27). In vi. 68f. Peter is the great confessor, 
as in the Synoptics. It is true that John represents him, 
as do the Synoptists, as the impetuous disciple, whose zeal 
outruns his discretion, and who is deeply penitent for his 
failings (xiii. 6-10, 36-38, xvill. 10-11, 15-27). But it 
is not sound critical judgment which finds in the race 
between Peter and John, in which the younger disciple 
outruns the older one (xx. 1-8), an expression of rivalry 
between these two apostles. That there were such rival- 
ries among the apostles to the very end is proved by 


344. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Matt. xviii. 1, xx. 20-28; Mark ix. 33 ff., x. 35-45; Luke 
xxii. 24-32. There is only a hint of it in John xii. 12- 
17 and in the wAéov of xxi. 15. Moreover, it is this very 
supplement, added with John’s knowledge and consent, 
which proves that after the death of Jesus all petty 
jealousy was banished from the apostolic circle. 

The question as to the literal trustworthiness of the 
discourses of Jesus which are contained in the Fourth 
Gospel—a question which cannot be answered categori- 
cally even in the Synoptics—is to be distinguished from 
the question as tothe origin of this Gospel. If the book 
was written between the years 80 and 90 (above, p. 334 f.), 
it seems hardly likely that one who heard the longer dis- 
courses of Jesus should retain an exact recollection of them 
for so long. Here, in the first place, due weight must be 
given to those considerations which explain in a general 
way the persistence of gospel traditions for decades (vol. 
ii. 418f.). In the second place, a man who between the 
ages of twenty and twenty-five years received impressions 
which determined the whole course of his life, would know 
just as much about them at eighty, if he remains in full 
possession of his faculties, as twenty years earlier, 
particularly if it had been his vocation for fifty years to 
testify orally concerning what he had seen and heard when 
he was with Jesus (1 Johni. 1-3). The difference between 
the discourses in John and in the Synoptics, and the 
resemblance of the former to the language of 1 John, do 
not prove that John’s report of them is unfaithful. The 
latter merely shows that in him more than in others the 
“words of eternal life,” which bound the author to Jesus, 
especially those words which Jesus spoke to His disciples, 
had been transformed into flesh and blood. With reference 
to the comparison between the discourses in John and in the 
Synoptics, there are sayings in the latter which no one would 
feel to be out of place in John (n. 17). Moreover, by cor- 
rect exegesis there is much that can be discarded from the 


& 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 345 


discourses of Jesus, such as speculative ideas and colourless 
generalities, which false interpretation has introduced into 
them. Finally, regard must be had to the esoteric char- 
acter of this book, due to the fact that the Fourth Gospel 
was written for persons who had long been believers, and 
manifesting itself in the choice of the discourses to be 
recorded. How much freedom John allowed himself in 
the reproduction of the discourses it is not possible to 
determine exactly and in detail (n. 18). Whoever assumes 
that John used a large degree of liberty, must remember 
that this is more natural in the case of one who has heard 
and who feels certain that he is in possession of the essen- 
tial historical truth, than in the case of one farther removed, 
who is dependent upon the accounts of those who heard, 
a.e. that it would be more natural for the apostles John 
and Matthew than for Mark and Luke, who were disciples 
of apostles. 


1. (P. 333.) Examples of early and widely current alterations in the 
text are found in i. 18 (above, p. 326, n. 3), i. 34 (above, p. 284, n. 2), 
ii. 3 (there is no reason why the critics should question for an instant the 
originality of the genuine Semitic text, 8* [D defective] S* [cf. also Adler, 
de Verss. Syr. p. 57; Se Ss are defective], and of the best Latin MSS.; iii. 34 
(all changes from &, such as the, addition of 6 @eds and the omission of 
avevpa, the complete alteration of the text found in Ss, are due to the failure 
to recognise that rd mvedua is the subject); v. 36: peifoy, ABE, etc, 
is harsh and hard to explain; even if pei(wy (cf. i. 50), which superficially 
considered seems more satisfactory, or peifova be the correct reading, on 
account of the article before paprupiay and the contrast between éxeivos, ver. 35, 
and éyw, ver. 36, the passage cannot mean: “T have a greater witness than 
that which John gave concerning Me,” but must signify, “I possess the 
(requisite) witness for Myself in greater measure than did John for himself.” 
Jesus refuses to appeal to the testimony of John in ver. 33f.; and in ver. 35 
John is not regarded as a witness for Jesus, but with Jesus is treated as a 
medium of revelation. Accepting the reading peifor, the passage means; J, 
a greater personality than John, possess the (one, the only witness to be con- 
sidered) witness (of God)” (see above, p. 322 f.). 

2. (P. 334.) Whether iv. 90 is an interpolation or not is uncertain (above, 
p- 332, n. 13). This is certainly true of v. 3b, €xdexouévmyv—xivyow, and 
vy. 4. In addition to the strong external evidence against both additions is 
the fact that this must have been a welcome explanation of ver. 7, and contains 
nothing out of harmony with ideas about angels held by the early Church. 
On the other hand, the additions certainly go back te an early date. Ver. 4 


346 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


was already part of the Greek text used by Tertullian (de Bapt. v.), and he ex- 
plained card xaipdv to mean “once each year”; cf. Didymus and Cyril in 
Tischend. 785, and Theophil. (Lat.), Forsch. ii. 81, 215, the last having also 
tiv Tod vSaros kivnow from ver. 3. Moreover, the gloss is thoroughly Jewish ; 
cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., ad loc.; Weber, Jud. Theol. §34; Rev. xvi. 5. Pos- 
sibly it is one of Papias’ comments ; cf. note 3. 

3. (P. 334.) With regard to vii. 53-viii. 11 the following remarks will 
suffice: (1) a distinction is to be made between witnesses for the existence of 
the story and witnesses which make it part of the Fourth Gospel. To the 
first only belongs the Didascalia, chap. vii. end (Syr., ed. Lagarde, p.31; Lat., 
ed. Hauler, xxiv. 15-22= Const. ap. ii. 24); because this third century work 
contains much apocryphal material and the length at which this story is 
reproduced (in the Greek recension even more noticeable because of the 
brevity with which a reference to Luke vii. 36 f. is here inserted) shows that 
it was not derived from one of the canonical Gospels. The story is very old, 
and could be read in various books not directly dependent upon each other. © 
Unless all signs fail, it was to be found in Papias and in the Gospel to the 
Hebrews (Eus. H. H. iii. 39.16; GK, ii. 703f.). In and of itself, and because 
of the analogy to Mark xvi. 9-20 (vol. ii. 478), it is very probable that the 
passage was inserted in the N.T. from Papias. Probably it is one of those 
apostolic traditions which Papias inserted in connection with his interpre- 
tations of the sayings of Jesus, most likely in connection with John vii. 24 
and viii. 15, so that those who gave it its present place in the Gospel were 
perhaps influenced by their source, the work of Papias. This location would be 
also favoured by the fine contrast between this passage and the illegal proceed- 
ings of the session of the Sanhedrin in vii. 45-52. There is no reason why 
the story itself should not be regarded as historical. (2) The earliest witnesses 
for the location of the passage before viii. 12 are Lat. MSS. from the fourth 
century onwards ; of the Greek MSS. the earliest witness is D (sixth cent.). 
The Syrians (Tatian, Sc Ss S! 8%) for a long time knew nothing of the passage. 
It was not until the sixth century that it was made accessible to them by 
various translations ; cf. Forsch. i. 190; Gwynn, Transact. of the Irish Acad. 
(1886) xxvii. 8, pp. 17-24; Nestle, PR#%, iii. 174. The passage is certainly 
no part of the Fourth Gospel; in the first place, because the Gospel to the 
Hebrews, in which it occurs, contains no other material in common with 
John ; and, in the second place, it is not likely that Papias would have 
repeated an entire story of this kind if it were already in the Fourth Gospel 
(above, p. 196), which was known to him. Moreover, the possible moral 
danger arising from the story is not sufficient to explain its disappearance 
from the oldest Greek MSS., and the fact that it was wanting originally in all 
the forms of the Syriac versions. Direct evidence of the spurious character 
of the passage is to be found also in the fact that its position is very uncertain. 
In the early MS., now lost, represented by the Ferrar group of cursives (13, 
69, 124, 346, etc.), it was inserted after Luke xxi. 38, where the location indi- 
cated in viii. 1,2 made it seem natural ; in other cursives and-Armenian MSS. 
it is appended to John xxi. Even if the latter position be due to the fact 
that it was found before John viii. 12, recognised as suspicious or spurious, 
and removed to the end of the Gospel because of unwillingness to omit it 
altogether, this does not explain its location following Luke xxi, 38, Finally, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 347 


the language shows that the passage is not Johannine. The Synoptic 
expression of ypappareis xal Sapiaio: in viii. 3 is entirely foreign to the 
Gospel of John, notwithstanding the frequent occasions when it might have 
been used. Also ex’ adropape, dvaudpryros, éheyxdsuevor bd THs cuvediocws 
are likewise not Johannine. The opinion advocated by Spitta (note 5), 
S. 197 f., following the suggestion of other writers,—that a genuine passage 
has fallen out between vii. 52 and viii. 12 and has been replaced by an 
apocryphal story, is untenable. For how does it happen then that the 
earliest MSS. RABC, etc., Origen, Eusebius (who if this were known to him 
could not have written as he does regarding Papias), certainly also Tertullian 
and the Syrian writers until the sixth century, know nothing of either the 
genuine or the spurious passage? The situation is practically the same as 
in Mark xvi. 9-20, save that the connection between John vii. 53-viii. 11 
and the Gospel of John cannot, as Spitta maintains, be traced back into 
the second century, but only into the fourth. The oldest witness for 
this passage is Ambrosius; to counterbalance the Verona MS. b, in which 
the passage was written by the first copyist, and crossed out by a later hand, 
there is the Verc. MS. a (fourth or fifth cent.) of equal age, which does not 
have it. : 

4, (P. 334.) Dxwrr’s interpolation hypothesis (above, p. 230) follows in 
part that of ScuweEizer (Das Ev. Jo. nach seinem inneren Wert wnters, 1841), 
who likewise cuts out the Galilean sections and with these the crudest of 
the miracles. Tosiur (Hv. Jo. nach dem Grundteat, 1867) demonstrates ad 
oculos an extremely brief ur-John. H. H. Winpr (Lehre Jesu, 1886, i. 
215-342; in a more extended and improved form, Das Johannesev. 1900) 
has attempted to cull out an original writing of the apostle John, which 
in essentials was a collection of sayings to be compared with the mythical 
“Togia.” In a way similar to that in which the authors of our first and 

‘third Gospels compiled their books out of the “Logia” and an original 
writing of a more historical character, a Christian of Asia Minor (circa 100- 
125) prepared the Fourth Gospel out of this Johannine collection of sayings by 
means of an independent and comprehensive recasting of the material, namely, 
by the insertion of stories of miracles, which were drawn partly from narra- 
tions of the apostle John which had been misunderstood, and partly from 
the earlier synoptic tradition (ii. 1-12, vi, 1-26, ix. 2-3, 6-38, xi. 39-xii. 19). 
The additions of the editor are not to be called interpolations, and one is not 
to be provoked with him on account of the awkward interpretations and the 
bold transpositions. We are rather, even to-day, to be grateful to him, that 
by means of the awkwardness of his recasting of the material he has made it 
possible for the critic to free the alone trustworthy witness of the apostle 
John from the deceptive covering. 

5. (P. 334.) Sprrra, Zur Gesch. u. Lit. des Urchristent. i. (1893) S. 155-304, 
“Uber Unordnungen im Text des 4 Ev.,” discussing disarrangements in the 
text of the Fourth Gospel, believes that such disarrangements can be proved ; 
(1) xviii. 12-28, he thinks, should be arranged as follows: verses 12, 13, 19- 
23, 24, 14, 15-18, 25b, 27, 28. Ina measure this agrees with Ss, z.¢. probably 
Tatian (Thib, 1895, col. 20f.), whose order is verses 12, 18, 24, 14-15, 19-23, 
16-18, 25-28, and the motives for this rearrangement are in part the same as 
those which clearly influenced the first harmonist, (2) According to Spitta, 


348 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the section xiii.-xvii. was originally arranged as follows :—xiii. 1-31a, xv.-xvi., 
xiii. 31-xiv. 31, xvii. Moreover, after xiii. 3la a passage dealing with the 
institution of the Lord’s Supper has been omitted. (8) A page has been 
omitted between xii. 52 and viii. 12 (see above, note 3). (4) vii. 15-24 belongs 
after v.47. Furthermore, inquiring how these disarrangements arose, Spitta 
reaches the conclusion that the book restored by the removal of these dis- 
arrangements was itself the alteration of an original work (S. 184, 185, 202), 
differing from its original, for example, by the insertion of vi. 51-59 (S. 218 
in the essay on the Lord’s Supper). The observations upon which this 
hypothesis is based are attractive only in the case of chaps. xiii—xvii. But 
the explanation of the disarrangements in the text is not satisfactory. In 
Xvili. 12-28 we are supposed to have the mistake of a copyist, whose eye 
skipped from the end of ver. 13 to the end of ver. 24, between which in the 
original stood vv. 19-23. Without noticing his mistake, he copied ver. 14 
which stood after ver. 24, and what followed in the original, namely, vv. 15- 
18. In the midst of the story of the denial he discovered his mistake and 
added the omitted verses, 19-24. In other words, he consciously inserted 
them in the story of the denial, the conclusion of which he was able to record 
only by inserting ver. 25a which he himself composed. This writer did not, 
therefore, belong to the familiar species of librariz oscttantes, but was an 
extremely alert and audacious scribe. To such a man as this was intrusted 
the production of the archetype of all later copies of the Gospel, the fair copy 
of a book intended for the use of the Church, and no correction of the text 
was deemed necessary. The displacement of vii. 15-24 was due to an equally 
bold procedure, only here the disarrangement was not due, asin the case of 
xiii.-xvil., to the wandering of a scribe’s eye from one passage to another ona 
sheet before him, but to the displacement of the sheets, which the scribe sub- 
sequently noticed and tried to conceal. This might readily happen, if it were 
a case of the original construction of the book, the transcription of the text 
from the schedule and plagule of the author toa roll, although one is astonished 
at the carelessness of a writer who permitted his work to be thus misborn. 
But, according to Spitta, the scribe to whom the Church owes the Fourth 
Gospel had before him a book which from a literary point of view was already 
complete, this work being in its turn the working over of an earlier original. 
Even Spitta is not able to assume that the copy which the scribe used had 
accidently fallen apart (S. 182f.). Neither has he succeeded in showing that 
published books were circulated in separate sheets not yet fastened together 
in aroll, which were intrusted to scribes for copying. Ulpian (Dig. xxxii. 52. 5) 
certainly means by libri nondwm conglutinati vel emendati, books in the process 
of being made, ¢.e. manuscripts more or less complete, which, however, must 
first be fastened together, and have errors of the copyist corrected, before they 
could be published. In such an instance it is necessary to make peculiar 
negligence on the part of the emendator (Siopwr7ys) and on the part of the 
author himself the basis of the entire literary history of the Fourth Gospel; and 
in the other very improbable case, assumed by Spitta, we are met by the strange 
circumstance that all correct copies of the book have disappeared, and that all 
the copies used in the church were based upon a copy as carelessly and as 
boldly constructed as his assumption calls for. A commentary would be neces- 
sary in order to set forth the internal reasons for this and similar hypotheses, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 340 


6. (P. 335.) Bengel in his Gnomon on gorw in v. 2 says: Scripsit Joannes 
ante vastationem urbis. This is the position taken earlier by Lampe and 
recently by Wuttig, 8. 28. In the first place, we are by no means justified 
in concluding from the brief description in Jos. Bell. vii. 1. 1 that no build- 
ing remained standing in Jerusalem. In the second place, it would be just 
as reasonable to conclude from John xi. 18 that Bethany and Jerusalem had 
disappeared when John wrote, especially in view of the fact that this 
information is not, like iv. 6, xviii. 1, xix. 41, a part of the narrative, 
introduced in the past tense after the fashion of popular story-telling, not- 
withstanding the continued existence of Jacob’s well and of the two gardens 
near Jerusalem ; but as a matter of fact it is a paranthetical remark of the 
author, intended to make xi. 19, 31, 45 f., xii. 9-11 clear to the readers. In 
the third place, as a general rule such conclusions are not to be drawn from 
remarks of this kind (vol. ii. 340, n. 13 on Heb.). Josephus (Bell. v. 1-4) 
regularly uses the imperfect with reference to buildings and even localities 
not affected at all or not essentially changed by the destruction of Jerusalem 
(e.g. the towers Hippicus, Phasael, and Mariamne, which Josephus himself 
tells us, Bell. vii. 1. 1, remained undamaged, rerpdyavos jv, etc.), the imperfect 
tense is used in the entire account (rpiros jjv Addos, meptciyovTo, éxadetro [not 
only trod AaBidov but also mpos judy], exadovpev, €xddovy). But he uses also 
bv Kadovowy ’Od)as (Niese, § 145), ds cadetrar BeCeda (§ 149), and again éxAn6n 
b€ emtyopios BeCeba. Gebhardt (Die Abfasswngszett des Joev. 1906), who is of the 
opinion that John 1.-xx. were written in Ephesus about 65, and chap. xxi. about 
67, uses the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem is not mentioned (S. 21, 32 f.) 
as proof for so early adate. As if Matt. and Luke give “ detailed descriptions” 
of this event, and as if the destruction of the temple were not just as surely pro- 
phested in John ii. 19 as in the Synoptics (see above, p. 156). With reference 
to the unsupported assumptions of Delff and Cassell, see above, pp. 228, 230. 

7. (P. 335.) A review of attacks upon the genuineness of the Fourth 
Gospel is to be found in LurHarpr (Der joh. Ursprung des 4 Ev. 1874, 8. 
6-34). A more detailed review, complete to 1890, is to be found in Warxrns’ 
Modern Criticism in tts relation to the Fourth Gospel, Bampton Lectures, i890, 
especially pp. 187-413. Sanpay, The Cratecism of the Fourth Gospel, 1905 
(Lectures delivered in the autumn of 1904 in New York). Among the latest 
opponents of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel may be men- 
tioned : Kreyvensiun, Das Lv. der Wahrheit, i. 11. 1900, 1905, who has used 
about 1600 pages to prove the statement that the Fourth Gospel is nothing 
other than the evangeliwm veritatis of the Valentinians (Iren. iii. 11. 9), 
and that its author is Menander, the disciple of Simon Magus, in Antioch 
(Just. Apol. i. 26); also GRILL, Untersuch. tiber dee Entstehung des 4 Ev. ; 
1 Teil, 1902, who, to be sure, has not gotten beyond an “ Analysis of the Pro- 
logue on the basis of a history of ideas,” but thinks (S. 384) that he has already 
made clear to his readers that Baur’s date for the Gospel appears to him 
hardly less tenable than that of Harnack. Finally, Wreps, Charakter und 
Tendenz des Johannes ev. 1903. J..DRumMonD, An Inquiry into the Character 
and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel ; and Sanday, in the above mentioned 
lectures, 1905, calmly give apologies for the genuineness of the Gospel, which 
weigh the arguments pro and con. 

8. (P. 336.) Baur’s remarks in Krit. Unters. 8.338, that even if the apostle 


350 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


John were the author of the Fourth Gospel, “We should still have to assume 
that he had no intention whatever of writing a purely historical Gospel,” 
has little weight, since Baur was of the conviction that John did not write 
the Gospel. Moreover, none of the four Gospels claims to be “ purely his- 
torical.” They are all writings containing historical material having a 
religious or didactic purpose. Lagarpe, Verhdltnis des deutschen Staats zu 
Theol., Kirche u. Rel. 1873, S. 31), declares himself convinced that the author 
of all the Johannine writings in the N.T. “can be none other than the 
apostle John,” and describes this apostle and Peter as the only important 
disciples of Jesus (S. 30); but at the same time he holds (S. 28-30) the state- 
ment that Jesus is the Messiah to be unhistorical and without meaning, 
declaring John, who by his Gospel desired to convince his readers of the truth 
of this statement, guilty of “ gross exaggerations” (S. 31). WurricHEN, who 
in his first work (Der gesch. Charakter des Ev. Jo. 1869) is far from accepting the 
contents of the Gospel as historically true, nevertheless admits that the book 
was written between 70 and 80 a.D. by the apostle John. Later, however, he 
gave up the apostolic authorship of the Gospel (Leben Jesu, 1876, S. viii). 

9. (P. 338.) Accurate details are given in i. 35-39 (above, p. 226, n. 8) ; 
i. 44 (where mention is made of the home, not of Peter and Andrew and 
Nathanael, but only of Philip, which may serve incidentally to show how 
the gospel reached Philip from Jesus, since subsequently Bethsaida is de- 
clared to be also the home of Peter and Andrew. In xii. 21, on the other 
hand, this is not the purpose of the remark, but it is probably intended to 
distinguish this Philip from the evangelist Philip of Hierapolis, who was 
known to the readers), ii. 6 (mumbers, which do not submit of any symbolical 
interpretation), ii. 15f., 20, ii. 23, iv. 18, 28 (the leaving behind of the 
water-pot), iv. 30 (the picturesque imp. #pyovro, which prepares the way for 
the parable in iv. 35), iv. 52 (where the mention of the hour as in ver. 53 
would have been sufficient), v. 2, vi. 3-12 (above, p. 286, n. 5), vi. 19, 23, 
vi. 71 (cf. xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, the name of the father of Judas and ex- 
planation of Iscariot, see n. 11), viii. 48, 57, xi. 30, 44, xii. 1-8 (above, p. 286 f., 
n. 6), xviii. 1, 10 (cf. ver. 26), xix. 39. 

10. (P. 339.) Speaking with reference to the relations of the Jewish 
parties, Wellhausen (Pharistier und Sadductier, 1874, S. 124) says of the 
Fourth Gospel: “The writer cannot be accused of ignorance of pre-Tal- 
mudic Judaism,” and rightly emphasises the fact, that John’s combination 
“high priests and Pharisees” (elsewhere only in Matt. xxi. 45, xxvii. 62), 
while technically incorrect, really describes the facts, and quite agrees with 
the views and representation of Josephus (S. 42, cf. S. 8,30). For the dis- 
tinction between the Pharisees, i. 24, and the embassy of “Jews of Jeru- 
salem,” 2.¢. of the Sanhedrin (i. 19, ef. iii. 28, v. 33), see above, p. 284. The 
representatives of the Sanhedrin performed their duty without taking any 
deep interest in the matter, i. 22. The Pharisees inquire as to the basis and 
justification of the Baptist’s work, i. 25. They hate Jesus because in their 
judgment He is a Sabbath-breaker and a sinner, ix. 16, 24. Back of His 
miracles, which they carefully examine (ix. 16-34) and do not deny (xi. 47), 
they suspect some ungodly magic. They speak of political dangers (xi. 48) 
only in order to win the alliance of the Sadducees, who are indifferent re- 


c 


ligiously. Especially noteworthy is vii. 49, where 6 dyAos «rd. reproduces 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 3et 


exactly the Jewish prxn oy ; cf. Weber, Jiid. Theol. § 11; Schiirer, ii. 387, 400 
(Eng. trans. 1. ii. 8. 22). 

11. (P. 340.) The present writer must reserve an exhaustive investiga- 
tion of the geographical statements for his Commentary. Furrer, Z-NTW, 
1902, S. 257-265, has given a brief survey. In respect of John vi. 1, where 
Furrer, 8. 261, would cross out either ris TiBepuddos or ras TadsAalas, see 
above, p. 333. In addition the following is repeated from the second edition 
of this work; Heracleon as early as 160 A.D. read Byéavia in i. 28, and this 
is the reading of nearly all the MSS. of Origen’s time, and also of our earlier 
MSS. But exception was taken to the reading by several writers before 
Origen, and especially by Origen himself, because there is no place of this 
name on the Jordan. They read instead BnéaBapa, because the traditional 
place where John baptized was said to have this name (Orig. tom. vi. 40 in Jo.; 
Hus. and Hier. De Situ et Nomin. Loc. Hebr., ed. Klostermann (Griechische 
Christliche Schroftsteller der ersten dret Jahrhunderte), p. 58. 18, also Sc Ss, but 
not Sh). Too much dependence is not to be placed upon local traditions of this 
sort, as, ¢.g., the traditions concerning Anon and Salim in John iii. 23 ; perhaps 
Bethany could not be located because it was looked for in the wrong place. 
It need not necessarily have been situated directly on the Jordan, although, 
according to the Synoptics, John baptized in the Jordan. Possibly it is iden- 
tical with Betonim, Jos. xiii, 26 (Eus. op. cit. (ed. Klostermann) 48. 11, Borvia 
7 Kai Tloreciv, répay Tov “lopddvov . . . Kal eivéru viv Gpoias ev Trois Toros xpnua- 
ri¢e. Jerome (ed. Klostermann), 103. 14, Bothnin trans Jordanem civitas .. . 
que usque hodie simaliter adpellatur). The form of the name seems to have gone 
through all sorts of changes. Furrer, S. 257, has also come to this conclusion, 
which he thinks he was the first to discover. Svydp, John iv. 4, is nota copyist’s 
mistake for Suyéy or Sika (02%, so Ss in this place) ; this would have been 
rendered by John as by Josephus (Bell. iv. 8. 1), Neapolis or Marbatha. Nor 
is the name an intentional alteration on John’s part (Hengstenberg, Komm. S. 
244 f.=“ Liigenstadt,” town of lies). The place is 12» (so in Sh, which shows 
acquaintance with localities) half an hour east of Sichem (Shechem) on the 
road from Jerusalem to Galilee, a place still in existence in the fourth century, 
and plainly distinguished from Sichem (Shechem) by the geographers (Eus. 
op. cit. 150, 1, and 164. 1); a distinction not essentially modified by Jerome, 
although in another place Interpr. Hebr. Nom., ed. Lagarde, 66. 20, and Quest. 
Hebr. in Gen. xlviii. 22, he explains Sychar as an early scribal error in John iv. 5. 
Cf., further, the Pilgrim of the year 333, Itin. Hierosol., ed. Geyer, p. 20. 7; 
Sechar, 1000 paces from Sechim ; Epiph. De Gemmis, Dindorf, iv. 209), prob- 
ably identical with the Talmudic 120; cf. provisionally Delitzsch, ZfLTh, 
1856, S. 240ff., in later times written by the Samaritans with the variant 
forms 720°, 120y, 20y. The present name is Asker or Askar; cf. Socin- 
Badeker*, S. 245, 251. Because of his familiarity with language and 
localities, John knows that the synoptic "Ioxapim0, “Ioxapimrns means the 
“man of Kerioth,” and that this was the home of Judas’ father, Simon, 
whom John alone mentions. The reading dr6 Kapvorov is to be recognised 
as original either wherever it occurs, vi. 71, xii. 4, xiii. 2, 26, xiv. 22, or in 
some one of these passages whence it has found its way into the others. 
Who could have invented it? The place is either Kerioth, Jos. xv. 25, the 
modern Kariaten (cf. Buhl, Geogr. 182) in Southern Judea, or Kopéa (Jos. 


352 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Bell. i. 6.5; Ant. xiv. 3. 4,5. 2) in the northernmost extremity of Judea, 
the modern Kurigut or Kariut ; cf. Robinson, Palestine, iii. 301 ; Wellhausen, 
Pharisiier, S. 152. With the latter location would agree the tradition recorded 
by Eusebius (on Isa. xxviii. 1 (Migne, xxiv. col. 284), that Judas belonged to 
the tribe of Ephraim. 

12. (P. 340.) If in xi. 49, 51, xviii. 13, John expressed the idea that the 
office of high priest changed yearly, and that Caiaphas, who held the office 
from about 18 to 36 A.D. officiated only during the year of Jesus’ death, he 
would show gross ignorance. But, (1) John does not say that Caiaphas was 
“the high priest of that year,” which especially in this passage, xi. 49, would 
have to be expressed by 6 apy. r. ev. éx. without dv (cf. Matt. xxvi. 57; 
John xviii. 33, xix. 19, 21). (2) Nor have the critics shown that Greeks 
spoke of officials, like consuls and archons, who changed office yearly in the 
familiar modern fashion (“the champion shot of last year,” “the hero of 
the day,” and the combinations with du jour). The years were named after the 
consuls and archons, not vice versa. (8) One of the most absurd rules is the 
one given, for example, by A. Buttmann, Nil. Gr. S. 148 [Eng. trans. p. 170], 
that the genitive is used to denote only general determinations of time (vu«ros, 
npépas, dra€ Tov evravrod). Some examples to the contrary are to be found 
in Kiihner-Gerth. i. 386; Winer, § 30.11. The present writer is able to add 
the following twenty cases: Gen. xi. 10; Isa. xiv. 28, xx. 1, xxxvi. 1; Jer. 
i.2; Dan. i. 1, vii. 1 (LXX, not Theodotion); 1 Mace. iii. 37, vi. 16, 20, 
vii. 1; Just. Dial. ciii. n. 22; Leucius (Acta Jo. p. 222. 5); Artemid. 
Onetrocr. v. 12 ; Herodian, ii. 14. 3, iv. 15. 4, vi. 9. 2, vil. 3. 3, 5. 3, viii. 1. 3 
(cf. also Rohde, Griech. Roman, 8. 462, A. 2). This temporal genitive does 
not, like dates with cardinal numerals (érra jyepov, Herodian, iv. 2. 4; 
Clem. Hom. iii. 72, vii. 5) denote the period of time within which the state- 
ment is to be limited, but means merely that at the time of the event 
recounted, Caiaphas was high priest, with no implication as to the terminus 
a quo and terminus ad quem of his high priesthood. John uses rod év, ek, 
instead of the equally permissible rére or ev exeiva TO Karp, etc., because he 
has in mind the fact that the only specific function performed by the high 
priest took place but once a year (Heb. ix. 7). It was necessary that the 
man, upon whom devolved the official duty of offering in that same year 
in his capacity as high priest on the Day of Atonement the legal sin-offering 
for God’s people (Heb. ii. 17, v. 3), should unconsciously prophesy the propitia- 
tory death of Jesus for the salvation of His people and of all children of God 
in the world. Jesus is the true sin-offering for mankind (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), 
just as He is the true Passover lamb (John 1. 29). If in John xix. 13 it 
were said that Pilate placed Jesus on the judgment-seat in order to mock 
Jesus, or the Jews, or both, the idea expressed would be historically impossible. 
In all probability the Acts of Pilate, which belong to a very early date, so 
understood or rather misconstrued the passages from which Just. in Apol. 
i. 85 confesses that he derived this idea upon which the Gospel of Peter is 
likewise certainly dependent (cf. the present writer’s article: on the Gospel of 
Peter, S. 42-45, 79 f.). The tendency to represent Pilate as practically inno- 
cent of the execution of Jesus, evidenced by the way in which Justin and 
the Gospel of Peter make the Jews, not Pilate, the subject of ca@ica, which 
is taken transitively, is the governing idea in all the stories associated with 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 353 


the name of Pilate, and is derived, therefore, from the Acts of Pilate. But 
it is perfectly clear that in John xix. 13 éxd@icev is not to be taken transi- 
tively but intransitively, as in Jos. Bell. ii. 9. 3, 6 IAGros kabicas ert 
Byparos ; for (1) In John as in the Synoptics and Acts the word is used only 
intransitively and reflexively (36 times in the Synoptics and Acts, often in 
the connection, éri @pdvov, Bnuaros, caOéSpas). (2) Any writer who wanted 
to make his meaning clear, especially any one using the style that John does, 
would necessarily have added atréy or “Ingodv, as in Justin and the Gospel of 
Peter, if this were really the object of exdéicev. (3) Historically it is quite 
impossible that Pilate should have desecrated the judgment-seat which symbol- 
ised his dignity by enacting with his own hands such a farce; for, since the 
reading is not exékevoey xabioa, éxdbicev if taken transitively must mean, 
like the éxaOicav of Justin and the Gospel of Peter, a forcible elevation to 
the judgment-seat. (4) There is nothing in John’s Gospel which necessitates 
our attributing to him the bad taste of inventing such an absurdity. The 
mocking of Jesus, which belonged to an earlier stage of the trial, xix. 2-5, 
Pilate left to the soldiers, and merely utilised the result of it to mock the 
Jews. In this passage, on the other hand, he is acting as the supreme judge 
of the land. The mention of the hour, the description of the place, the 
statement of the outcome of the trial in xix. 13-16, show that John here 
intends to describe the imposition of a very seriously intended death sen- 
tence by the judge who alone could impose such a sentence (xviii. 31, xix. 
10f., 19-22). 

13. (P. 340.) Heb. and Aram. words and interpreted names are as 
follows: pai, i. 38, 49, iii. 2, vi. 25, ix. 2, xi. 8 (Matt. and Mark 7 times 
together, Luke none) ; pa@Povri, xx. 16 (cf. Mark x. 51, vol. i. 20); Meooias, 
i, 41, iv. 25 (vol. i. 20f.); Kndas, i. 42 (vol. i. 16); duqy, duny, i. 51 (only in 
John, 25 times, vol. i. 18) ; Byééoda, v. 2 (which is not translated, but inter- 
preted in accordance with the literal meaning of the word (see vol. i. 28) ; 
pdvva, Vi. 31, 49; Srody, ix. 7 (vol. 1. 29); Cwpas, xi. 16, xx. 24; doavvd, 
xii. 13 (vol. i. 21); TaSSa0a, xix. 13 (vol. i. 29); Todyo04, xix. 17. Cf. also 
the explanation of the name Iscariot above, note 11, Concerning od®Barov 
maoxa, see above, p. 324. 

14, (P. 340.) Cf. Scutarrmr, Die Sprache und Heimat des 4 Evangelisten, 
1902. In addition to Heb. and Aram. words (n. 13) and the form of O.T. 
citations (n. 15), evidence of the Hebrew origin of John is to be found not so 
much in single Hebrew phrases like é« rév Gapicaiov = bapicaior tes (above, 
p- 284), and expressions like épxov kal ide, 1. 46, cf. 39 (=n xn) ; Heb. (x1 93) ; 
“amndOoy «is; Ta dicw, Vi. 66; eLovoiay mdons capkds, xvii. 2; 6 vids rhs 
dmanelas, XVii. 12, as in the character of the style as a whole, which is in 
need of special investigation. John hardly ever attempts a periodic sentence, 
and when he does he fails, e.g. vi. 22-24. It is noteworthy how often cai is 
used in an adversative sense (i. 10, iii. 19, vi. 70, vili. 20, 49, x. 25, xvii. 11). 
Its use with the imperative or future to express sequence, 1. 39, 46, vii. 52, xiv. 1, 
xy. 7, is likewise to be noted (cf. ZKom. Matt. 303, 442). In continuing an 
account «at is frequently replaced by 5é, also by ody, which is used over 
frequently, and by the omission of a connecting particle altogether, eg. 
i. 40, 41, 42 (twice), 43, 45, 46), 47, 48, 49, 50, frequently in conversation by 
the unconnected Aéyet air (vol. ii. 591, n. 7 on Matt.) It is as if there were 

VOL, Il. 23 


354 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writing a Jew, to whom someone had said: You must not always say “and.” 
The rhythm of the language, while impressing the reader with a certain 
solemnity, shows on the other hand a monotony due to poverty of expression. 

15. (P. 340.) Cf. Franxu, Das AT. bet Jo. 1885, S. 255-316. The 
freedom with which John everywhere makes his citations (eg. li. 17, xara- 
gdyerar instead of xarépaye, xii. 15, pu hood, variations which suit the 
situation) renders it difficult to determine the relation of the passages to the 
original text and to the LXX. In i. 23, cited from Isa. xl. 3, ed@vdvare corre- 
sponds to eveius movetre (LXX and Syn.) in the second part of the verse not 
quoted by John, but is an exact translation of ew» independent of the LXX. 
If i. 29 were based upon Isa. liii. 4, which is very questionable, aipwy would 
be a new translation of xw3. The citation in vi. 45 from Isa. liv. 13 could be 
changed into an independent sentence very easily if taken from the original 
text, but with difficulty if taken from the LXX. The abridged citation in 
xii. 15 from Zech. ix. 9 does not contain a word which shows its dependence 
upon the LXX; on the other hand, doy dvov is a translation from the 
Heb., independent both of Matt. xxi. 5 (cf., however, Matt. xxi. 2) and of the 
LXX. The citation in xiii. 18 from Ps. xli. 10 shows no resemblance to the 
LXX, and is an exact translation of the Heb., especially if we read pod with 
BCL, not per’ evod with NAD; cf. Matt. xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 20. The same 
is true of the citation in xix. 37 from Zech. xii. 10, where the LXX has 
emBreovra mpds pe avO Sv karwpxnoayte (the LXX MSS., e.g. Cryptoferr. 
rescr., and others in Field, Hexapla, ii. 1026, which have also eis dv e&exévrnoay, 
some of them before, others after dv@’ S» xar., are, of course, interpolated from 
John xix. 37). Only in the later Greek versions, all of which seem to have 
retained émiBdeYrovrar pds pe (this is proved in the case of Theodotian), is 
the text corrected : Aquila, obv 6 é&exévtnoav ; Theod. eis dy é&ex. ; Symm. 
éumpoobev émekexevtnoay. Cf. also Rev. i. 7, otrwes atrov e&exévrncay ; 
Barn. vii. 9, dyovra airév . . . xaraxevrncartes, ; Just. Dial. xxxii. emvyvo- 
oeobs cis Ov efexevtnoare. In view of these examples, the supposition that 
in the Gospel and Rev. John is dependent upon some unknown ‘Greek 
version, in which was found the characteristic forms éWovra (only in John 
and Barn.) and cis dv ée€exévrnoay (Just., Theod., only partially in Aqu.), 
only serves to prove that there are some who refuse to recognise what is per- 
fectly evident, namely, that John is citing Zech. xii. 10 in the Gospel and 
Rey. from his own knowledge of the original text, and that Barnabas and 
Justin are dependent upon John. 

16. (P. 342.) Once, in xviii. 36, Jesus speaks to the Romans of the Jews, 
who have cast Him out (cf. Acts xxv. 10, xxvi. 2, 4), which is less strange 
than the remark in xviii. 20, where before the high priest Jesus says “all 
Jews,” instead of “our entire people.” Yet the present writer is not disposed 
to consider this impossible historically, after Jesus has been called a Samaritan 
(viii. 48), charged with the intention of going to the Gentiles (vii. 35), and 
arrested with the help of the heathen cohort (xviii. 12). In Acts xxi, 21 
Luke represents the presbyters of Jerusalem as speaking in the same way to 
the Jew Paul. 

17. (P. 344.) Matt. xi. 25-30=Luke x. 21f.; Matt. xii. 12 (Mark iii. 4; 
Luke vi. 9 (cf. John x. 32, épya cada); Matt. xv. 13, xvii. 26 (John viii. 35 f.), 
xviii, 3 (John iii, 3-5), xvili, 7 (ré xdope), xviii. 14 (John vi, 38f.), xix. 11 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 355 


xxvi, 38f. (Mark xiv. 34 ff. ; cf. John xii. 27, v. 30, vi. 38), xxviii. 18 (John 
v. 27, xvii. 2), have a Johannine sound. 

18. (P. 345.) In opposition to the view that John sometimes permits a 
speech of Jesus to shade off into theological expatiations of his own, instances 
to the contrary may be cited. John iii. 19-21 is a fitting conclusion of 
the address to Nicodemus, who was still afraid of the light (iii. 2, xix. 39, 
vuxtés). In John v. 42 the relation is manifest between the place (Bethesda) 
and the character of action which suggested the discourse (vol. i. 28, n. 15). 
There is no discourse where it is difficult to imagine the source of John’s 
information. If the gradual acceptance of the gospel by Nicodemus, which 
John describes, terminated, as it undoubtedly did, in his reception into the 
membership of the Church, John could have learned from him what he 
recalls in ili. 1-21, vii. 45-52, xi. 47-50. The contents of iv. 7-26 were 
probably repeated more than once by the Samaritan woman, and John had 
abundant opportunity both at the time (iv. 40) and later (Acts viii. 25) to 
hear her tell it on the spot. 


§ 70. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN. 


Both of the smaller writings which have come down 
to us under the name of John bear the stamp of genuine 
Epistles, in spite of the fact that the author calls himself 
simply “the Elder”; but the larger writing, which we 
are accustomed to call 1 John, lacks almost all the 
elements that constitute that form of composition. Not 
only is the greeting wanting, as in Hebrews, but in the 
course of the letter, and notably at the close, there is an 
absence of all that otherwise marks Hebrews as an Epistle. 
In this respect it is comparable rather to James, which, 
however, is introduced as an Kpistle by its opening 
greeting. That 1 John has not lost its epistolary form 
by accident or design, is proved by the opening words 
(i. 1-4); as is the case in Hebrews in so far as its 
beginning might give occasion for a similar suspicion. 
Even after a greeting supposedly lost, an Epistle could 
not begin with such phrases as 1 John presents to us 
(vol. ii, 312f). On the other hand, it does not repre- 
sent a speech put into writing before or after delivery ; 
for the author indicates everywhere throughout the docu- 
ment (i. 4, and twelve times from ii. 1 onwards) that 


356 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


writing is the form of the communication he is making. 
Only once does he allow a Aéyw (v. 16) to intrude in place 
of ypadw—a change which Paul often makes. 1 John is 
then, like James,—except that it lacks the form of a 
pastoral Epistle which is peculiar to the latter,—a written 
address to a circle of Christians, all, or the majority of 
whom, live at a distance from the author. Furthermore, 
inasmuch as there is wanting in this Epistle, just as in 
James, and even to a greater degree than in the latter 
Epistle, all regard for special, personal, or locally con- 
ditioned relations between the author and the readers, 
there can be no doubt that a somewhat large circle of 
congregations—as, é.g., the Christians of a district or of a 
province—are here addressed. ‘I'he warning against idols, 
v. 21, which, as the last word of the writing, leaves all 
the deeper impression, indicates that these Churches have 
grown up on heathen soil. If we may trust the tradition 
and the first impression made by the comparison of 
1 John with the Gospel of John, which would lead us 
to suppose that both writings have the apostle John for 
their author, we may assert even upon this basis that the 
author in this address has to do with the Churches of the 
province of Asia. The author who does not find it neces- 
sary to introduce himself personally to the readers—for 
i. 1-4, in which he does not speak of himself alone, is not 
a substitute for the introduction—possesses the authority 
of a father among them. Although he uses the name of 
“brother” often enough, he employs it only once in 
addressing the readers (iii. 18). On the contrary, he 
addresses them seven times as texvia, and twice as waiSia, 
with which ayarnro/, occurring six times, is almost equiva- 
lent, because of the frequent combining of dyamnrds with 
vids or téxvov (n. 1). Despite the differentiation between 
old and young in their company, which occurs twice, he 
admonishes them all as a father would his children. Such 
language befits only an old man. This seems so much the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 357 


more certain when one notices that this fatherly relation 
is not such as would be based upon the fact that the writer 
was the missionary who had instituted their religion among 
eaem (ct. Cor, iv, 14-17; 1Tim. i, 2, 18; 2: Timaig 
1 Pet. v. 13). He declares repeatedly and emphatically 
that he has nothing new in the way of doctrine or ex- 
hortation to offer them, but only that which they have 
heard and adopted from the very beginning (ii. 7, 18, 
20f., 24, 27, 11.11). In none of these passages is there, 
however, any hint that the author had taken a personal 
part in this original evangelisation and fundamental in- 
struction of the readers; cf. per contra 2 Pet. i. 16; 
1 Cor. xv. 1; Gal. i. 8f. If, therefore, despite this, he 
adopts toward the readers the attitude of paternal 
authority, he must have been active in these com- 
munities for a considerable period of time, as a teacher 
and a leader, though they had been founded by another. 
But this is not true of him alone. Since he per- 
sistently uses “I” when he speaks of himself as the 
author of this writing, it is clear that the ‘“we”—where 
it is not used as a general term for all Christians—-(i. 6-10, 
iii. 1 f., 14-16), comprehends, besides the author, a number 
of persons who, in distinction from the readers, share in 
some way the author’s position (i. 1-5, iv. 6, 14, 16). 
What they possess in common is, first of all, the fact that 
they have heard with their ears, seen with their eyes, and 
touched with their hands, the Son of God, sent by Him to 
be the Saviour of the world—the life which had existed 
from eternity, but which had been revealed in this 
historical personage—the personal Word of life (above, 
p- 329, n. 6) in all its manifestations (i. 1, 3, 5, iv. 14). 
In words which cannot fail to remind us of John i. 1, 
14-16, vi. 68f., the author reckons himself as one of the 
personal disciples of Jesus. But with this experience is 
given the commission to preach and bear witness regard- 
ing what he has seen, heard, and experienced, to those 


358 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


who have not enjoyed such an advantage (i. 2, iv. 6, 14; 
ef. John xv. 27). Even if this preaching (i. 2f, 5) is 
spoken of as directed toward the readers, the absence of 
an tpiv in iv. 14 reminds us of the evident fact that the 
mission of the disciples of Jesus to testify to others of the 
revelation of the eternal life in Jesus, which they had 
experienced, was not limited to the circle of readers of 
1 John. More than this, it is very emphatically stated 
in i. 3 that John and those whom he includes with him- 
self, announce to the readers («ai ipiv) also, what they 
have seen and heard (n. 2). In other words, what they 
here proclaim they announce or have announced to others. 
The purpose of the proclamation is that the hearers may 
be in fellowship with the preachers, which is at the same 
time fellowship with the Father and with Jesus Christ. 
Inasmuch, however, as this purpose, as regards the 
readers, is expressed by the words ta kat iets xowvwviav 
éxnte pe? Hyaov, it is thereby stated that John and the 
other disciples—with whom he here includes himself— 
have at some former time preached to others, outside their 
circle, and with the same purpose and success, what they 
have experienced in their intercourse with Jesus. 

John speaks, then, in the name of several of the dis- 
ciples of Jesus, who formerly in other places and in other 
communities pursued their calling as witnesses, and who 
are now carrying it on among those congregations to which 
1 John is directed. If we turn to history we shall find 
that, from about the year 68, besides John several other 
disciples of Jesus who had formally been at work in 
Palestine, had settled in the province of Asia. We can 
name with certainty Aristion and Philip; but there is no 
lack of support for the assumption that still other members 
of the apostolic circle—whether understood in the narrower 
or wider sense—lived there for a more or less extended 
time (n. 3). Of himself and of these companions of his, 
John says, “ And these things (which we have announced 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 359 


and still announce to you as well as to others) we write, 
that our joy may be made full.” It should be self-evident 
that this does not refer solely to the letter he is writing or 
solely to the Gospel he had written. That it does not 
refer to the letter is evident: (1) Because John, as has 
been remarked, always speaks of himself as the author of 
this letter, in the singular only. The other disciples, who 
likewise live and preach in Asia, have not the smallest 
share in this letter. It is the address of John the 
individual, who assumes toward this circle of readers the 
entirely unique position of a father. Whether it is his 
age, or apostolic dignity, or both which raises him above 
the other disciples in Asia, we cannot gather from the 
letter; but we may conclude that he probably did not 
share his peculiar position in the circle of readers with 
the companions mentioned in i. 1-5, iv. 6,14, 16. (2) 
In ver. 4, according to the genuine text (n. 2), no reference 
is made to any connection existing between this literary 
work and the present readers—a reference which could not 
possibly have been wanting at the place where the author 
would first have called attention to his authorship of the 
letter. Ver. 4 does not refer to the satisfying of some 
need of the readers (cf. per contra ii. 1, v. 13), but to the 
joy and satisfaction which it affords the eye-witnesses to 
set forth in writing what they have heralded by word of 
mouth. Similarly the reference in ver. 4 cannot be to the 
Gospel. This would not agree with the tense nor with 
the plural number of ypddopev (cf. per contra, John xix. 
35, xxi. 24, above, p. 239). It is rather a statement 
without reference to time, embracing all of the literary 
work of the eye-witnesses, both past and future. This 
general statement refers, therefore, quite naturally to the 
writing in which it occurs, as well as to others. With 
these words the apostle expresses the joy with which he 
now resorts to writing as a means of conveying to the 
readers his testimony to the “ Word of Life ”—his message 


\ 


360 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to them upon many former occasions having been delivered 
orally. It affords him pleasure to employ writing also as 
a means to the fulfilment of his mission. Whether he has 
employed it often before, either in letters to his present 
readers (n. 4) or to others, or in the composition of a 
Gospel, cannot be ascertained from this passage, since it 
does not refer to the writings of John alone. 

If he had at that time written the Gospel,—which is 
more likely than 1 John to have been the writing referred 
to by the object (radra) of ypadew,—or if he was then busy 
with its composition, or even with the project of its com- 
position, he must have had this also in mind; we do not 
know. But as far as the others are concerned, who like 
him not only testify, but also write, ver. 4, which does not 
speak of any connection between the ypadew and the pre- 
sent readers, therefore does not compel us to think of the 
other writers as just these disciples in Asia. Further, the 
lack of any element of time in ypa¢oper gives us no occasion 
to think solely of recent writings or of writings which are 
about to be made. From the literature which has come 
down to us we must exclude the Epistles of Paul, who was 
not an eye-witness, as well as the Epistle of James, which 
contains nothing of the object of ypd¢ev, as it is summed 
up in the tadra of ver. 4. On the other hand, we must 
remember that Peter, the witness to the Passion and 
exaltation of Jesus (1 Pet. v. 1; 2 Pet. i. 16-18), toward 
the end of his life recognised it as his duty to supplement 
his oral testimony by writings of various kinds, and so to 
give his teaching permanent form. One of these letters 
has not come down to us. We do not know whether any 
further literary purpose which he may have had was ever 
realised (vol. ii. 200f.). We learn of this same desire on 
the part of Jude, who wrote his Epistle after the year 70 
(vol. ii, 241f.). Moreover, before this year the Apostle 
Matthew, and Mark, the disciple of Peter, had written 
their Gospels, and at the time John was living in Ephesus 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 361 


both books were known in the Churches of the province of 
Asia. The close relation of Mark’s Gospel to Peter, which 
John discussed with his disciples, justifies our considering 
this Gospel also as part of the literature referred to, al- 
though Mark himself had been only in a very limited 
sense an eye-witness. Briefly, it is the Christian litera- 
ture which since the sixties had been in process of forma- 
tion and which had not yet reached completion, written 
directly and indirectly by the eye-witnesses of the gospel 
story, which John includes with his own written testimony. 
By this address John wishes to strengthen the readers as a 
whole in that Christianity which has been brought to them 
not by him, but by others before him. He wishes to 
write, not that they may believe, nor that their present 
belief may be strengthened (cf. John xix. 35, xx. 31), but 
that they may become thoroughly conscious of the posses- 
sion of eternal life, which they have as believers on the 
name of the Son of God (v. 13, cf 1 Pet. v.12). They 
have received forgiveness of sins and the anointing of the 
Holy Spirit (ii. 12, 20, 27); they have known the Son of 
God who is from the beginning ; and through the faith in 
Him which is common to all Christians, they have over- 
come the World and the Evil One in whose power the 
present transitory world is held (ii, 12-14, v. 4f, 18f,). 

From the very beginning they have heard the whole 
truth, which alone is the important thing for them to hold 
fast (il. 7, 24, 27, iii. 11). Moreover, as to the prediction 
of the end of the world, they need only to be reminded of 
what they have formerly heard (ii. 18); they all possess 
truth not recently received through the anointing (ii. 20 f., 
27), but truth which they have always possessed (ii. 7, evyete 
not éxere), 2.¢. before John became connected with them. 
But the old truth must again and continually be preached, 
and taken to heart, and its consequences followed out; and 
this is to be done in two ways: as regards morality, and 
as regards appreciation of the person of the Son of God, 


362 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


A superficial survey gives one the impression that 1. 5-11. 
17 inclines toward the former, that ii. 18—-iv. 6 leans at 
least predominantly toward the latter, and that iv. 7—v. 12 
or to v. 21 unites both lines of thought. But the division 
cannot be strictly carried out. Even in the first two 
divisions the ethical is inseparably connected with the 
religious. The demands for purity of life in God’s light, 
which includes the confession of sin (1. 5-10); for the 
observance of the commands of Jesus in emulating His 
holy life (ii. 4-6, cf. 11. 3), especially for brotherly love 
(ii. 7-11, iil. 11-18), as well as for the forsaking of the 
love of the world (ii. 15-17),—are everywhere derived from 
the highest truths of faith and religious experience. ‘The 
one and only will of God, the fulfilment of which brings 
to man eternal life, embraces both: belief in the Son of 
God, and brotherly love according to the standard of the 
command of Jesus (iii. 23, cf. u. 7f., 17). Nevertheless, 
it must be recognised that the ethical admonitions are 
occasioned in a different way from the Christological state- 
ments. In the first section i. 5-11. 17, in which the 
purpose assigned for the discussion is the very simple one, 
that the readers may not sin (ii. 1), there appear as 
occasions for the exhortation only the undeniable facts 
that the Christians also are still burdened with sin, and 
that they still live in a world which exercises a seductive 
influence upon those who live in it and in the flesh (i. 8- 
10, ii. 1b, 16). Even in the further injunctions as to 
moral requirements, 11. 3f., 9-18, iv. 7-21, we meet 
everywhere only such motives for sinning as lie in the 
general depravity and weakness of human nature, and 
never a theoretical support of immorality, such as Paul— 
and Peter and Jude in a much more developed form—had 
to combat (vol. ii. 279f.). The warning against being led 
into error (iii. 7), which occurs only in a: single isolated 
instance among the ethical discussions, and in a later 
passage, points unquestionably to the fact that there were 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 363 


persons in the circle of the readers who spoke as though 
one could be righteous without practising righteousness 
and avoiding sin. With an eye to such false teachers (ii. 
29-11. 12), the contrast between the righteousness which 
has its origin in the righteous Jesus, and which has as its 
goal the future perfecting of the children of God in like- 
ness with the Son of God, and sim, which is rebellion 
against God’s law, and which makes one a child of the 
Devil, is described as an unreconcilable antagonism, ex- 
tending from Cain and Abel down through human history. 
Perhaps one may here adduce the likewise isolated and 
exceedingly brief, but by reason of its position at the 
close, very effective warning in v. 21. Inasmuch as it is 
directed to the readers, who are here again tenderly 
addressed, and who in the whole letter appear in a very 
favourable light, it cannot mean that they are not to fall 
away to formal idol-worship, but that they are to avoid 
that dangerous approximation to the heathen cult against 
which the apostolic decree was directed (Acts xv. 20, 29, 
Xxi. 25, dvdrdocecOar), and against which Paul had so 
insistently warned (1 Cor. vill.—x., especially x. 14, vol. 
i. 296, n. 2). Living in a land where there was a high 
degree of culture (ii. 16) and a flourishing cultus (v. 21), 
the readers do not want for enticements, and there is no 
lack of Gentile Christians who take lightly the duty of 
keeping oneself unspotted from this world. But still 
there is no trace of any libertine theory. Neither is there 
any hint of a connection between the phenomena by which 
John felt himself led to his treatment of ethical matters, 
and those phenomena which led him to very definite, 
positive and negative statements in regard to the person 
of Jesus. The first section which has this purpose in view, 
ii. 18 ff.; closes formally at ii. 26, and is followed in ii. 27 f. 
by a peroration, by means of which the ethical section i. 
29-iii. 18 is separated from the first warning against the 
false teachers in ii, 18-26, just as it is separated by iii. 


X ‘ 
364. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18-24 from the second warning against the same false 
teachers. With these two portions directed against the 
same distortion of the picture of Christ, and the peculiar 
statements of 1 John concerning Christ which are occa- 
sioned by them, we may without hesitation connect the 
evidently similar passages in 2 John. 

Many deceiving teachers have appeared who seek to 
lead the readers astray to their own doctrine (ii. 26; 
2 John 7). They have gone forth from Christianity—not 
specifically from the circle of the present readers, which 
would in that case be stated in 11.19. According to the 
opinion of John, however, they have not from the be- 
ginning, not even before they appeared with their 
peculiar teaching, belonged inwardly to Christianity. 
For him they are, as the Pharisaical Jewish Christians 
were to Paul, pevdaderdo. from the very beginning (Gal. 
ii. 4; 2 Cor. xi. 26) people who, when they entered the 
Church, did not break completely and conscientiously with 
ideas and aims which proceed from their former religious 
condition. That became evident from the fact that they 
appeared with their peculiar teaching concerning Christ ; 
and so perfectly evident did that become, that they could 
no longer remain in the Church. They are expelled from 
the Church (ii. 19), and that, too, against their will; the 
Asiatic Churches have overcome them (iv. 4). But in 
spite of this they themselves seek to exert their seductive 
influence upon these congregations, and to claim, as 
Christian brothers, friendship and hospitality in the 
houses of the members of the Church. On this account 
John demands that they be refused greeting and 
hospitality (2 John 10f.). 

Their appearance is to him an omen of the approach- 
ing end; for they seem to him to be forerunners of the 
antichrist of whom Christian prophecy, based upon the 
prediction of Jesus, had warned men, and in this sense 
they themselves are antichrists (n. 5). Although they 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 365 


are called “false prophets ”—.e. teachers inspired with 
the spirit of the antichrist—and even “spirits” which 
are to be proved (iv. 1-3), there is nothing to lead one 
to suppose that they employ certain forms of address 
characteristic of the prophets, and base their claims upon 
visions or special revelations. It is sufficient for this 
characterisation, which occurs but once, to say that they 
preach their pseudo-Christian doctrine with the pretension 
of an inspiration coming from God. The fundamental 
falsehood which they champion is said to be the denial 
of the proposition that Jesus is the Christ; and this is 
characterised as a denial of the Son (ii. 22f,, v. 1, 5), 
which might in itself be said of every Jew or Gentile 
who rejects the fundamental article of Christian belief 
(John i. 41-49, vi. 69, xx. 31). But inasmuch as it has 
to do with people who not only have belonged to the 
Christian Church but who also wish still to be accounted 
Christians, it is impossible that they have in every sense 
denied the identity of the person of Jesus with the idea 
of the Christ ; as also their designation as antichrists, and 
false prophets animated by the spirit of the antichrist, 
would be inappropriate if they had fallen away from the 
confession of the Christian faith to a simple negation and 
dispute of the same. Their doctrine is rather a distorted 
picture of Christian belief clad in its forms. What they 
deny is that Jesus Christ came in the flesh (iv. 2; 
2 John 7). They do not deny the idea of the Christ, 
nor the fact that the promised One came, but they deny 
Jesus, or, according to the evidently original reading, 
they resolve into its human and divine elements the 
historical person of Jesus (n. 6). They deny that the 
man Jesus is the Son of God (v. 5). In opposition to 
them, therefore, the author testifies that this man of 
history who went through water and blood, «.e., who not 
only allowed Himself to be baptized, but dying, also shed 
His blood,—the Jesus of the gospel history and the Christ 


366 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


of the Churches’ belief—is the Son of God (n. 7). In 
addition to the witness, which is in the baptism by water 
and in the bloody death of Jesus, there is the testimony 
of the Spirit—of that Spirit we may say, who before 
Jesus, in the Prophets, including the Baptist, had borne 
witness to Jesus as the Christ and Son of God; who came 
upon Jesus at His baptism, and who has passed over from 
Him, as the one baptizing with the Spirit, to His Church. 
The testimony of the Spirit, of the water, and of the 
Blood is a triple and yet single witness of God that He 
has, in Jesus, a man living in the body, sent His Son 
to the world, and in Him has given it life (v. 7-12). 
The matter here in dispute is not to be characterised by 
the one word “docetism.” The reality of the human 
person and of the human experiences of Jesus is not 
denied, but the complete identity of this Jesus with the 
Christ and the Son of God. Excessive emphasis was laid 
upon the baptism of Jesus, while the significance of the 
death of Jesus, on the contrary, was disparaged. One can 
hardly understand this otherwise than that the false 
teachers said that in the baptism of Jesus, the Christ 
and the Son of God had a part, in so far as He united 
Himself with Jesus at the time of and by means of the 
baptism ; but that in the death upon the cross He had no 
part, in so far as He separated Himself again from Jesus 
before that event. 

In the broader sense this doctrine was, to be sure, 
docetic; and it is with perfect propriety that John, in 
answer to it, testifies that the Christ, who is inseparable 
from Jesus, came in the flesh (iv. 2; 2 John 7); that he 
emphasises the redemptive power of the blood not so 
much of Jesus as of the Son of God (i. 7); that he teaches 
the recognition of the essential purpose of the sending of 
the Son of God in the propitiation for sin, which is to be 
conceived of only through the shedding of blood (iv. 10, 
ii. 2); and that he, at the very beginning of the Epistle, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 367 


i. 1-8, gives assurance with such incomparable energy, 
that the Man whom they perceived with their senses, 
with whom he and his companions were allowed to 
associate so intimately, was the revelation of the life 
which had existed with the Father from the beginning. 
He does not say, nor prove by means of reminiscences of 
isolated events in the gospel narrative, that Jesus was a 
man, perceptible to the senses, incarnate, revealing Him- 
self as human in all that He did and suffered; but with 
the still incontestible presupposition of that time, when 
many disciples of Jesus were still living, that these things 
were true of Him, he bears witness that this man was the 
Son of God, sent as Redeemer of the world (iv. 14), the 
personal and incarnate manifestation of the eternal life 
(i. 2). From this standpoint the polemic and apologetic 
attitude of the Fourth Gospel becomes more intelligible 
(above, p. 321); not only to crass identification of the 
revelation accomplished through Jesus, with the incarnate, 
living man, but also the emphasis upon the reality of the 
death of Jesus and the shedding of His blood, of which 
John himself was one of the witnesses. 

When the false teachers laid excessive emphasis upon 
the baptism of Jesus, and when they admitted only at 
His baptism a temporary personal union of the Christ 
and Son of God with Jesus, Jesus the man was not, to 
them, specifically different from other persons through 
whom revelation was given; and it is at least conceivable 
that the Baptist, through whose mediation God first made 
Jesus the instrument of the Christ, occupied almost as 
high a place as Jesus Himself. How intelligible then 
does it become that the Fourth Gospel, with an unmis- 
takably polemical purpose, portrays the Baptist as the 
humble witness—vastly inferior to Jesus—of the coming 
Son of God, manifested in Him! If we look in the 
history of heresies for the original of the false doctrine 
depicted and contested by John, we shall find what we 


368 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW 'TESTAMENT 


are seeking in the, teaching of Cerinthus, the contem- 
porary of John of Ephesus, in so far at least as we free 
the true portrait of this teacher from the foreign additions 
by which the ignorance of the later writers on heresy 
have disfigured it (n. 8). The report that Cerinthus 
enjoyed an Hgyptian education has nothing against it. 
If he came from that country to Ephesus, as Apollos did, 
the theory obtains new support from this parallel that a 
school of thought, connected with that of the Baptist, 
outside the Church from the very beginning, was formally 
‘received into the Church of the province of Asia, though 
it did not give up altogether its peculiar opinions (above, 
pp. 323, 331). In accordance with this theory is also the 
fact that the false teachers of 1 John had their origin 
probably in Christendom, though not in the Asiatic 
Church (ii. 19, above, p. 364), so that the prophecy in 
Acts xx. 29, not that in Acts xx. 30, was fulfilled in their 
appearance. 

After all this evidence has been considered, there can 
be no doubt as to the answer to the question regarding 
the origin of 1 John. The unanimous tradition which 
attributed this writing to the author of the Fourth Gospel, 
is corroborated by an affinity of thought, vocabulary, and 
style, such as can hardly ever be proved between an 
historical and a didactic writing of the same author, to 
say nothing of different authors (n. 9). If, without con- 
sidering the varied problems which John had to solve, 
it be claimed on the basis of certain differences, that both 
writings have merely issued from the same school, it is 
equivalent to treating these writings as impersonal works 
of art, or as school exercises. In 1 John it is not a school, 
nor the single member of a school, who speaks to these 
eager readers; but, as has been shown, it is a teacher of 
unimpeachable authority who addresses a somewhat large 
circle of Gentile Christian Churches lying outside of 
Palestine. It is a personal disciple of Jesus who speaks — 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 369 


here; one who has been active formerly as a Christian 
teacher in other regions, but who has had for a long time 
the position of a spiritual father in this new field of 
activity. He shares this career with several others, but 
so far surpasses them that he does not once find it 
necessary to allude to himself by name. Such a state of 
affairs existed, as far as we know, only in the province 
of Asia, and between about 68-100 a.p. At the same 
time, we find there also the false doctrine which 1 John 
combats (n. 10). There must be taken into account also 
the fact that a writing which was originally anonymous 
cannot be called pseudonymous. The author cannot have 
intended to pass for the apostle John, without being so 
in fact, for he does not employ the means which are 
customary and indispensable for such purposes. He is, 
therefore, in the light of this writing, the writer of the 
Fourth Gospel, the John of Ephesus, and the apostle of 
that name. As to whether he wrote the letter earlier or 
later than the Gospel, the present writer would hardly . 
be able to decide. A direct reference to the Gospel would 
have been very natural, if it had been already written 
and delivered to the Church. The Epistle must certainly 
have been written earlier than Revelation. All that we 
learn from the latter—a book intended for the same 
circle of readers—as to the condition of the Church in its 
relation to heathenism and to the State, as to the internal 
condition of the Churches, and as to the Nicolaitans and 
other matters—could not have failed to leave a trace in 
such a detailed writing as 1 John. On the other hand, 
John must have been at work in Asia for years, to have 
been able to address the Churches there in such a manner. 
1 John can hardly have been written before the year 80. 


1. (P. 356.) The ddeAgoi which appears in ii. 7 and iii. 13 is genuine only 
in the latter passage. The readers as a body are addressed as rexvia either 
with or without pov in ii. 1, 28, iil. 7, 18, iv. 4, v. 21, unquestionably, also 
in ii. 12. The expression does not mean that the Christians so addressed are 
youthful, as distinguished from aged, members of the Church—as is clearly 


VOL. Ill, 24 


4990 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


proved by the fact in this case the order, “children, old men, young men,” 
ver. 12f., would be senseless. The same is true also of ravdia, ii. 14 (in some 
texts ver. 13b), which in ii. 18 is certainly used to designate the readers as a 
body. Consequently the readers, who are alternately addressed as rexvia 
(ii. 12) and as mavdia (ii. 14) (cf. John xiii. 33, xxi. 5), are twice divided into 
two classes, marépes and veavioxor; cf. mpecBvrepor and vewrepo, 1 Tim. 
pide 

2. (Pp. 358, 359.) The text of i. 1-4, in regard to which Tischendorf and 
Westcott-Hort agree, is not subject to improvement. The xai before tyiv in 
ver. 3, removed in the Antioch recension, and the second kai, to which there is 
no serious objection, are attested by the Passio Perp. chap. i. The double xai 
is not pleonastic ; in which case we should have it also in ver. 2 and ver. 5. 
Moreover, the relation between the disciples and the readers is already so 
strongly expressed by the conception xavevia pe judy that the double 
kat, still deemed necessary, must be explained by a contrast between the 
readers and other groups of Christians ; cf. Eph. vi. 21, vol. i. 490,n.6. The 
variations of ver. 4 from the original text are due, for the most part, to the 
feeling that this must refer to the composition of the Fourth Gospel. There- 
fore the reading éypdyrapev is presupposed in the Acts of Peter (above, p. 250), 
Can. Mur. line 31, and some MSS. of the Vulgate. More widely diffused is 
the reading tpiy instead of jets (so as early as the Canon. Mur.), and ipay 
instead of nuav. Not only are jets and joy better attested, but they are 
also favoured by the fact that these readings could not have been easily 
invented. Since tiv is spurious, jzév cannot as in 2 John 12, assuming 
that it is genuine in the latter passage, include the readers with the author 
and his companions. The reading jets, which is peculiar both in itself and 
because of its position (cf. iv. 14, 16), refers back to the group of eye-witnesses 
previously mentioned. 

3. (P. 358.) In regard to John and the other disciples in Asia Minor, see 
vol. ii. 485, 451f., above, pp. 191f., 1938f. In 1 Johni. 1-4 the reference 
is not to apostles but to disciples of Jesus. There is nothing which prevents 
us from including Aristion and other paOnrai rot xvpiov. Even Philip of 
Hierapolis is not to be excluded. This Philip, who, because of his pro- 
phetically endowed daughters, who likewise resided in Asia Minor, is held in 
Eus. (H. £. iii. 31) to be the evangelist Philip, might the more easily be 
confounded with the apostle of the same name—as is done by Polycrates 
about 195 (Eus. H. E. v. 24. 2)—if he had been a personal disciple of Jesus. 
Nothing which makes this impossible is suggested in Acts vi. 5, viii. 4-40, 
xxi. 8f. Cf. Forsch. vi. 158-175. Whether Andrew, also, was temporarily 
in Asia Minor is more uncertain. Regarding Andrew and Aristion, see 
Forsch. vi. 217-224, The present writer thinks that in Forsch. vi. 187 f., cf. 
S. 177, 183, he has paid sufficient attention to the attempts to refer 1 John i. 
1-4, iv. 14-16 to the mystical contemplation of an epigone, instead of to an 
experience of the senses on the part of a life companion of Jesus. 

4. (P. 360.) The word éypawa, which is thrice repeated in ii. 14, is not 
equivalent to ypddo as used in letters; because we find yeade used in ii. 
1, 7, 8, 12, 18 with reference to what is to be written immediately following. 
Neither does it refer to a previous letter ; for in that case first of all ver. i4 
would have to precede ver. 12 and a contrast indicated between the present 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 371 


letter and the earlier one by means of a viv, dpri, wddw (cf. Gal. i. 9 where 
the antithesis is to earlier oral statements), or Td Sevrepov (cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 1 f.; 
2 Pet. iii. 1). Secondly, the object of the éypaya is practically the same as the 
object of ypade in ver. 12f. Consequently ¢ypaya is to be taken here, as in 
li. 21, 26, v. 13, as an aorist referring to what immediately precedes (cf. 
3 John 9). John is fond of repetition, but likes at the same time to vary 
his language. Paul expresses himself more tersely, cf. Phil. iv. 4. 

5. (P. 364.) In 1 John ii. 18 the idea that an antichrist will come is 
presupposed as part of the common Christian teaching familiar to the 
readers, in fact we have already seen that such an idea was actually part of 
the common Christian faith (vol. i. 226 ff.). Only at the time when 2 Thess. 
was written the name avriypicros does not seem to have been as yet in 
common use. Neither is it strange that the readers had heard of a spirit of 
antichrist yet to come, iv. 3, 6; because it was predicted that he would 
appear in the full glory of pseudo-prophetic signs and wonders, 2 Thess. 
11.9f. Just as Paul saw the pvornpiov of the antichrist already at work in 
his time, so John saw the spirit of the same manifesting itself in his day 
(iv. 3, #5n ; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 7). In every teacher inspired by this spirit he 
perceives a preliminary incarnation of the future antichrist (ii. 18, 22, 
2 John 7). The relation of this preliminary to the complete manifestation 
is conceived of in the same manner as in John iv. 21-23, v. 25. The first is 
not merely analogous to the second ; it is the beginning and indication of it. 
Because there are many antichrists, John recognises that “it is the last 
hour,” naturally not in the general sense, in which the beginning of the end 
comes with the appearance of Christ (1 Pet. i. 20; 1 Cor. x. 11; Heb. i. 1), 
nor yet in the sense that “the last hour or the last day” has come (John - 
xi. 24, xii. 48; Matt. xxiv. 36); but in the sense that the present, which is 
full of significant portends of the coming end, for this very reason partakes 
of the character of the end, cf. Jas. v. 3, 5, 8. 

6. (P. 365.) The text of iv.3 has been very much corrected, which is 
proof that its original language was unusual. In the first place, it is certain 
that the correct reading is “Incotv without Xpiordy, which is frequently added 
(KL S! S3, Sah. Copt. Vulg., once also in a free quotation by Tert. Jej. i.) or 
ktptov (x). Other readings are as follows: (A) 6 Ave "Ingody, so Iren. (Lat.) 
iii. 16. 8; according to the scholion of the Athos MS, ad loc. (von der Goltz, 
S. 48), also in the Greek text of Irenazus. In this same scholion it is stated 
that Crement of Alexandria in his work on the Passover (Forsch. iii. 32), 
and ORIGEN in tom. 8 of his Commentary on Rom., quote the passage in this 
way. This is confirmed by Orig. (Lat.) i Matt. § 65, Delarue, iii. 883, cf. 
tom. xvi. 8 in Matt. p. 727, od dv Tov Incody amd rod Xpiorod (according to 
Cramer, Cat. v. 226 on 1 Cor. xii. 6, Origen, however, seems, moreover, to 
have known the B reading, which is found also in the text of the Athos MS.). 
Here belong also certain “ancient MSS.” referred to by Socrates, H. EL. vii. 
32, who appeals at the same time to ancient interpreters ; also by TERTUL- 
LIAN (c. Mare. v. 16, negantes Ohristum in carne venisse [according to 1 John 
iv. 2; 2John J], et solventes Jeswm [according to iv. 3]; Je. i. nec quod 
Jesum Christwm solvant); Lucirrr, ed. Vindob. 262. 3; PRISCILLIAN, p. 
31.3; Aveustine, Vulg. (+Christum) ete. (B) 6 pi) dporoyei rov "Inoody AB, 
with the added Xpiordv, Sahid. Copt. (C) The reading B with the addition 


‘ 


372 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


év capkt €dndvOdra, NKL §! S%. (D) The reading A with almost the same 
addition in Ticonius, Lib. Reg., ed. Burkitt, p. 68. 1, qua soloit Jesum et negat 
in carne venisse. (EH) Quite as isolated is the reading in Cypr. Test. ii. 8, 
where simply qui autem negat in carne venisse is added as ver. 3 at the end of 
1 John iv. 2. Other very early witnesses, such as Polye. vu. 1; Tert. 
Carn. Chr. xxiv., refers rather to 2 John 7—a passage which Irenzus, Pris- 
cillian, and others quote in connection with 1 John iv. 3, which also Tert. 
c. Mare. v. 16 freely quotes in connection with the same passage. Readings 
CDE are clearly derived from 2 John 7 under the influence of 1 John iv. 2. 
B likewise is only an “improvement” of the original A text. 

7. (P. 366.) In regard to the sentence v. 6a, which is interpreted in very 
different ways, the following remarks may be made: (1) The otros which 
points backward can take up again only the predicate 6 vids rod Geov, not the 
subject "Iycovs in ver. 5, and is itself the predicate; otherwise 6 eddav 
instead of 7#A@ev and the appositional phrase "Inc. Xp., added at the end, are 
impossible. The expression is not smooth, but such language is often found 
in John (John vi. 50, 58, cf. 33). The name “the Son of God” is applicable 
to Him, who has gone through water and blood, namely, to Jesus Christ. 
(2) 6 eAOwy is not equivalent to 6 epydpevos. It certainly, therefore, cannot 
refer to a repeated coming in the sacraments, or yet to the coming of Christ 
into the world, or to His public appearance. For, in the first place, in that 
case it would be necessary to refer to the flesh (cf. iv. 2; 2 John 7); and, in 
the second place, water and blood were not the medium through which Christ 
came into the world or entered upon His public work, nor were they associated 
with His coming or with His public manifestation (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 4, “I wrote 
unto you with many tears”). Still less does the passage mean that Christ thus 
equipped and clothed came into the world, in whichever sense this is taken. 
That would require ev not dua. The word ¢pyec@a: means here, as it does else- 
where (vol. ii. 589, n. 4, also John iv. 30, vi. 17, xxi. 3), “to go” ; consequently 
with dua=depxecda, “to gothrough.” Jesus underwent the baptism of blood 
as well as the baptism of water (Mark 1. 9, x. 38f.). On the strength of this 
statement John could add that Jesus the Christ is to be found not “in the 
water alone, but in the water and in the blood.” Whoever seeks Him and hopes 
to find Him in the water alone “ has not the Son,” and so is without the Father 
and without the life” (v. 12, 11.23). | With reference to the so-called “Comma 
Joanneum ” about the three heavenly witnesses after 1 John v. 7, it is sufficient 
to refer to Tischendorf ad loc., Westc.-Hort, App. 103, and to Scrivener, Introd.4 
ii. 401-407, for the literature. But none of these authorities cite the earliest 
quotation of the passage which is certain and which can be definitely dated 
(circa 380), namely, that of Priscillian (p. 6) and the possibly contemporane- 
ous quotation in the Hxpositio Fidei Cathol. (in Caspari, Kirchenhistor. Anecd. 
S. 305), which quotation is apparently taken from the proselyte Isaac (alias 
Ambrosiaster). Nevertheless, on the 13th of January 1897, the Congr. S. R. 
et U. Inquisitionis declared that denial or doubt of the authenticity of this 
passage was not unobjectionable; cf. the present writer’s lecture, Uber die 
bletbende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, 1898, S. 26. Conscientious Catholic 
theologians, however, have not allowed this declaration to prevent them 
from proving so much the more thoroughly the apocryphal origin of this 
interpolation. So especially Kiinstle, Das Comma Joannewm auf seine 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 373! 


Herkunft untersucht, 1905, who seeks to show that Priscillian is the author 
of it. 

8. (P. 368.) Concerning the real teaching of Cerinthus, see vol. i. 515, 
n. 4; concerning the opinion of the Alogi that Cerinthus was the author of 
the Johannine writings, see above, p. 200f. n. 11; for his personal relations 
to John, above, p. 204, n. 24. If he denied the possibility of the virgin con- 
ception and birth of Jesus (Iren. i. 26. 1), the fact throws a new light on 
John i. 13 f. (above, p. 265 f.). John’s references to Mark, which are particu- 
larly evident, must also be considered in the light of the fact that Cerinthus 
admitted only this Gospel to be genuine (vol. i. 456, n. 16). No trust- 
worthy witness charges Cerinthus with gross immorality or antinomian 
ethics, and this agrees with the tone of 1 and 2 John (above in the text, p. 
362f.). Not even 2 John 11 can be made to support such theories and 
practice on the part of heretics ; since ra ¢pya ra rrovnpa is only a description 
of their moral attitude as a whole, and their conduct as tending to mislead 
the children of God; cf. John iii. 19, vii. 7; 1 John iii. 12; 3 John 10. 
But it is evident that John failed to discover in them the true love of God 
and of their brethren. The zoAdoi in 1 John ii. 18, iv. 1; 2 John 7 does 
not refer to a number of different types of errorists, but to the strong follow- 
ing secured by one type of them. The reason why their teaching found 
acceptance, is their use of non-Christian ideas and forms of expression, 
1 John iv. 5. Cerinthus was learned in Egyptian wisdom and culture 
(Hipp. Ref. vii. 33, x. 21) ; he was a Gnostic. 

9. (P. 368.) Regarding the relation of 1 John to the Gospel of John, see 
Holtzmann, JofPTh, 1881, S. 699 ; 1882, S. 128, 316, 460. In order to show 
the close relationship between 1 John and the Gospel of John, it would be © 
necessary to place beside nearly every sentence of 1 John two or three 
parallels from the Gospel. They agree, too, in not using certain conceptions, 
elsewhere widely current, such as evayyéAwov (in the Johannine writings 
only in Rey. xiv. 6, and there not of preaching ; dyyeAia is used instead in 
1 John i. 5, iii. 11), edayyedifeoOa (neither word is found in James, Jude, 
and 2 Peter). That the resemblance between 1 John and the Gospel is not 
greater, only goes to confirm what is apparent from the Gospel itself, namely, 
that John in writing the Gospel was conscious of the difference between the 
language of Jesus and the understanding of the disciples at that time on the 
one hand, and the language and understanding of the Church on the other 
hand. He does not represent Jesus as using the name Logos, but himself 
employs it as a well-known phrase. Comparing 1 John i. 1 with John i. 
1, 14, perhaps one can say that in the letter the conception of the Logos 
seems to be less fixed and the name less formal. There is nothing strange 
about the use of wapd«Ayros in 1 John ii. 1 to describe the relation of the 
exalted Jesus to God and to the Church (vol. i. 64 f.) ; because in John xiv. 
16, Jesus represents Himself as having been heretofore the paraclete of the 
disciples. Not in every respect does He cease to be a paraclete because of 
His exaltation. But His Church, which remains on earth, needs for its life 
in the world another Paraclete which will remain with it. Neither Jesus 
nor Paul mention the “antichrist ” by this name (above, n. 5). It is a mis- 
conception, however, to assume that the Fourth Gospel excludes the common 
eschatological views of the early Christians. To show this in detail would 


374. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


require a complete exposition of John iii. 17-19, iv. 21-23, v. 20-29, vi. 
39, 44, 54, xi. 24-26, xii. 48, xiv.-xvi. 

10. (P. 369.) Of the heresies of the post-apostolic age none has nearly so 
many points of contact with the errors which John opposes as the real teach- 
ing of Cerinthus, certainly not the Jewish docetism of Ignatius or the gnosis 
of Basilides. While in Cerinthus the cosmological speculations and the 
speculations relating to the history of religion appear to be little developed, 
Basilides has a well developed system. Although Basilides may have laid 
a certain emphasis upon the baptism of Jesus (Clem. Hac. e. Theodoto, 16 ; 
Strom. i. 146), there is no evidence that his teaching on this point was the 
same as that of Cerinthus. The errorists of 1 John exhibit none of Basilides’ 
phantastic docetism (Iren. i. 24. 4) and loose morals (Iren. i. 24. 5 ; Clem. 
passim). Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that the teachings of 
Basilides spread from Egypt to Asia Minor. 


§ 71. THE LESSER EPISTLES OF JOHN (N. 1). 


The Third Epistle of John is evidently a letter of 
recommendation which the author has given to some 
Christians who wish to journey from his place of residence 
to that of Gaius, the person addressed. Their purpose, 
however, is not to settle in this new place, but to continue 
their journey. They are commended to Gaius that he 
may show them hospitality and send them forward on 
their way (5-7, n. 2). Apparently, not long before the 
same brethren have experienced similar kindness from 
Gaius. The author expresses his pleasure and gratitude 
(n. 2) that these brethren, who had recently returned to 
his home, which seems also to have been their own, have 
borne witness not only to the genuineness of Gaius’ char- 
acter and manner of life, but also to his love; and have 
commended it before the assembled congregation (3-6). 
It is this same love which Gaius is again to show them. 
These brethren are not, however, persons who, as private 
individuals, live a restless, roving life; they are preachers 
of the gospel, or rather travelling missionaries. As such 
they receive no help from those outside the Church, and 
are therefore so much the more dependent upon the 
hospitality of fellow-Christians (7). Whoever entertains 
such persons co-operates in the spreading of Christian 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 375 


truth (8). This describes quite fully the occasion and 
purpose of the letter; since what follows serves really to 
explain why the author addresses the communication to 
Gaius and not to someone else. This would require no 
justification if Gaius occupied an official position in the 
local Church, upon which rested the duty of caring for 
missionaries and other Christians passing through the 
place. But there is no hint of this. Gaius seems to be a 
member of a congregation, who is upon friendly terms 
with the author, and whose means, as in the case of his 
namesake at Corinth, enables him to practise hospitality 
upon an extraordinary scale (n. 3). Since, however, the 
exercise of such Church hospitality is the business of the 
congregation, and therefore the affair of its presiding 
officer (n. 3), it is most strange that the travellers are 
recommended to Gaius exclusively, instead of to the local 
Church or to Gaius as its leader, with the injunction to 
interest the remaining members of the congregation in the 
matter. It is this, however, which is explained in vv. 9f. . 
To be sure, the author also wrote a letter to the congrega- 
tion to which Gaius belonged; but in this he could not 
and would not write what he writes to Gaius alone; for 
he could not be sure that his request would be granted 
(n. 4). Although we should expect him to have exhorted 
the congregation, either directly or through their leader, 
to entertain the missionaries,—especially since, apart from 
this, he had, at that time, to write to the congregation, 
and actually did write to them,—the remark about 
Diotrephes makes any such hypothesis impossible; for 
Diotrephes does not recognise the authority of the author 
and of the other disciples of Jesus (n. 5), who like him 
have come into the circle of the local Church. He will 
not be advised by them, and ventures even to make 
derogatory remarks about them. In fact, not satisfied 
with this, he refuses to receive the brethren recommended 

by the author—such as the travelling missionaries who 


376 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


are the bearers of the letter to Gaius; and not only 
forbids their reception by the members of the congrega- 
tion, who would have been inclined to receive them, but 
excludes from its membership such as do not submit to 
his orders. Diotrephes, consequently, possesses great 
power in the local Church, and exercises it in a direction 
hostile to the author, and directly opposed to the measures 
which he recommends. The author is not at all inclined 
to allow Diotrephes to continue to do as he pleases. He 
plans, when next he visits the place where Diotrephes and 
Gaius reside, to bring to issue the evil conduct of the 
former (10, 14), and to do this before the assembled 
congregation; for his purpose is not simply to remind 
Diotrephes of his duties, but rather to bring to their 
minds his evil words and deeds (10, troprfcas without 
avrév; cf. 1 Tim. v. 20). Until such time, however, the 
author refrains from addressing letters of recommendation 
in behalf of journeying brethren to the congregation in 
which this imperious man rules, or to the man himself. 
The description of the conduct of Diotrephes, especially 
the é« tis éxxAnoias éxBdddet, presupposes that he occupies 
an official position, formally recognised even by those who 
do not agree with him, and one which even the author is 
bound to consider, and which enables him successfully 
to play the autocrat. The conclusion drawn from the 
description of him as 6 ¢uvoTpwtetwr adray, that Diotrophes 
was only striving for the position of autocratic bishop, is 
shown from the facts adduced to be unjustified (n. 6). 
He already has this official position, and what he is 
accused of is simply that he employs it in an imperious 
and ruinous manner; that he is an ambitious hierarch who 
does not follow the precept of Jesus (Mark x. 44) and the 
example and exhortation of the apostles (1 Pet. v. 3; 
2 Cor. i. 24), being in addition an opponent of the author 
and of the other disciples of Jesus in that Church circle. 
This assertive and hostile attitude is not due merely to 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 377 


the fact that, as lord in his own house, he will not allow 
himself to be dictated to by these men in the affairs of 
his congregation. The insufficiency of such a theory is 
evident from the simple fact that it is unproved, and that 
it is unlikely that others of the apostolic circle besides 
the author occupied a similar superior ecclesiastical office 
in the Asiatic Church. His attitude is rather, like the 
instance in 1 John iv. 6, one of contradiction of the 
apostolic teaching (n. 5). The leader of this congregation 
is an enemy of the author and of his companions; but 
there are in the same place we know not how many 
persons such as Gaius, and perhaps also a certain Deme- 
trius (12), upon whom the author looks as his friends and 
to whom he sends greetings by name (15). That which 
distinguishes these persons from Diotrephes, however, is 
not merely a respectful friendship for the author or a 
greater measure of practical brotherly love for the Chris- 
tians travelling through their locality (6, 10, tods Bovro- 
pévovs); for the thing to which the missionaries bore 
witness upon their return from the home of Gaius, and 
that at which the author particularly expresses his 
pleasure, is that Gaius possesses the truth and walks 
therein (8, 4), which, according to 2 John 4ff, 1 John 
i. 7 ff., certainly cannot be taken to mean a theoretical 
orthodoxy, still less an active brotherly love alone. It is 
rather the firm adherence to the apostolic teaching which 
shows itself in life. That this is the testimony given of 
Gaius, distinguishing him from others (3, where ov is not 
to be disregarded), shows clearly enough that Diotrephes is 
not attached to that truth, and that he is, principally on 
that account, unfriendly towards its advocates—+.e. to the 
author and the other disciples and missionaries recom- 
mended by him. It by no means follows that he was on 
this account a declared false teacher. The false teachers 
of 1 John were expelled from their congregations; not 
one of them could have been the leader of a local Church. 


378 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


But one who refuses as decidedly as does Diotrephes to 
give ear to the apostolic wishes (cf. 1 John iv. 6), and 
who speaks so disrespectfully of those who communicate 
them (3 John 10), marks himself thereby a confederate of 
these errorists ; and it may be assumed that his rejection 
of the missionaries recommended by ‘the author carries 
with it a suspicious toleration of the mdadvo. In spite of 
the schism which divided the congregation, and the 
strained relations existing between Diotrephes and him- 
self, the author wrote a letter to the Church of which the 
former was the presiding officer (3 John 9). When, in 
consideration of the power of Diotrephes over the con- 
greeation, the author does not take up the subject of 
practical demands which call for immediate fulfilment, he 
surely does not contemplate giving up his position of 
authority over that local Church. He intends soon to 
assert it in person (10a), and he already manifests it 
in his letter. He has friends there who at times are 
oppressed by Diotrephes (1, 106, 15), and he looks upon 
all the members of the congregation as his children, even 
if he is able to take pleasure only in those who walk in 
the truth (4). 

Fortunately we are not constrained to guess what 
the author wrote in the letter to the congregation, of 
Diotrephes, since we possess it in 2 John. According to 
3 John 9 (éypayd te) it was brief in form,—in fact it is 
shorter than any other Epistle in the N.T. with the 
exception of 3 John. It is so exactly like 2 John in 
extent, that one must assume that the author used two 
pages of papyrus (xépras, 2 John 12) of the same size for 
both these letters (n. 7). Furthermore, the stylistic form 
of both is so very similar, that, for this reason also, it 
cannot be doubted that both are from the hand of the 
same author, and were written at the same. time (n. 7). 

In both of them the author expresses his hope of 
coming soon to those whom he is addressing, and, instead 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 379 


of the unsatisfactory epistolary communication, to speak 
to them face to face. In 2 John nothing is said about 
recommending travelling missionaries, just as there was 
nothing on this subject in the letter to the congregation 
mentioned in 3 John 9, if we interpret it rightly. But 
2 John is really directed to a local Church which the 
author addresses as a chosen mistress, as the mother of its 
members, wedded to the Lord Christ, and as a sister of the 
Church in the place where he is living, 1, 5, 18 (n. 8). 
We find here the same contrast which existed in the con- 
oregation of Gaius. The author found only a few children 
of the congregation to be walking in the truth (4). In 
fact, it must have happened that persons who did not 
hold the apostolic doctrine, but the same false doctrine 
that is combated in 1 John, received hospitality among 
the people, if we are to understand why the author so 
earnestly warns against the very thing which is con- 
demned in the first Epistle, and stigmatises even the 
friendly greeting of such persons as participation in their 
evil ways (10,11). The author includes all the members 
of the congregation in sincere love; not because of their 
virtues, but because of his faith in the enduring truth, 
which in Christians is not easily destroyed (1f.). He uses: 
great moderation of expression when, instead of rebuking 
the others, he speaks of his special pleasure at the good 
behaviour of many of the members of the congregation (4). 
His appeal goes out to the whole congregation to hold fast 
to the old command of love, to the old truth of Jesus 
Christ as come in the flesh, and to the doctrine of Christ 
Himself, and the warning not to lose, in their folly, the 
whole harvest of the labour of their Christian life (5-9 ; 
n. 9). The danger in which this local congregation stood 
was great; but Diotrephes had not yet reached the point 
where he could hinder the reading of the letter before the 
assembled congregation. ‘The author does not give the 
congregation up, but trusts, by means of both letters, to 


380 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


prepare the way for the discussion in which he hopes to 
contend with Diotrephes and to restore the congregation 
to the right and proper way of thinking. 

The author mentions by name neither himself nor the 
locality to which he is sending the letter by the hand of 
travelling missionaries ; he characterises himself rather as 
“the Elder” (6 wpec8vrepos) who has a right to consider as 
his children also the Christians of other parts of the pro- 
vince in which he lives (2 John 1; 3 John 1, 4). This is 
the name applied in the circle of his disciples to the John 
who lived in Ephesus (vol. u. 435 ff, pp. 451 ff ; above, 
184f.). A man of letters who wished to pose as the 
apostle John, would have brought himself into the Epistle 
under the name and plain title of the latter. The apostle 
John could, thanks to his unique position in the Church of 
Asia, either neglect entirely the introduction of himself 
(1 John) or, in the case of real letters (2 and 3 John), 
select an appellation which had become current in daily 
life. Concerning the date of the composition of the 
Epistles only conjectures are possible. The disinclination 
to write (2 John 12; 3 John 18), which stands in such 
contrast to the pleasure which it gives him in 1 Johni. 4, 
may be due to the painful occasion which gave rise to the 
lesser Epistles, but may also be explained by the increasing 
age of the author, in which case the term o mpecSvrepos 
which he gives himself would be most appropriate. The 
ageravation of the internal factionalism of the congrega- 
tion, which is merely hinted at in 1 John iv. 6, may be 
due to the fact that 1 John is directed to the Churches of 
Asia, which on the whole were a source of satisfaction to 
the apostle ; while, on the other hand, the lesser Epistles 
refer to a local Church in which exceptionally critical con- 
ditions had developed. But a further development may 
have taken place. The abuse which Diotrephes made of 
his episcopal position seems‘to take for granted that this 
institution was not one which was entirely new. At the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 381 


same time it is likely that 2 and 3 John were written 
several years later than 1 John. 


1. (P. 374.) Recent works on the subject are : Poaarn, Der 2 and 3. Brief 
des Apostels Jo. 1896 ; HARNACK, TU, xv. 3b, 1897, on Third John ; CHAPMAN, 
“The historical setting of the 2. and 3. epistles of St. John,” JThS, 1904, p. 
357 ff., 517 ff. Chapman infers from 3 John 7 that the strangers, who had been 
hospitably received by Gaius, had journeyed to the East from Rome, on account 
of the persecution of Nero. One of these was Demetrius (ver. 12), identical 
with Demas (Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 10), in whose home city, Thessalonica, 
Gaius was also resident; the same Gaius as the native of Corinth mentioned in 
Rom. xvi. 23, who, according to a tradition referred to by Origen, became the 
first bishop of Thessalonica. Diotrephes also lived in the same city ; and the 
letter, referred to in 3 John 9, but not extant to-day, was directed to that city. 
2 John is subjected to similar caprices. 

2. (P. 374.) The reference to hospitality is given in ver. 5, kat rovro Eévous; 
ver. 6, mpomépu es refers to aid on the journey (vol. ii. 54, n. 4). For éydpny 
Aiav in ver. 3, cf. Philem. 7; Phil. iv. 10; Polye. Phil. i. 1; vol. i. 456, n. 3. 
In ver. 3, ddeApav, which is without an article, might refer to other than the 
persons mentioned in ver. 5, except that in ver. 6 paprupetv, which we find in 
6 as in ver. 3, is attributed to those who are now journeying to Gaius, only in 
ver. 6 the word has a more definite object. For tmép rod dvoparos, cf. Rom. 
i.5; for ro évopa, which = the name of Christ, see Acts v. 41=ix. 16, xv. 26. 
In the Didache, xi. 3-6, we learn of the itinerant missionary preachers of a 
somewhat later period, called drdéaroXou (cf. also vol. i. 290 f., 302, 306). 

3. (P. 375.) This Gaius can hardly be identical with the Gaius of 
Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14; Rom. xvi. 23), nor with the Macedonian of the same 
name (Acts xix. 29), but perhaps he is the same as the Gaius of Derbe (Acts 
xx. 4; vol. i. 209, n. 2). This Gaius is referred to in Const. vii. 46, where he 
is represented as having been ordained by John as bishop of Pergamum, just 
as Demetrius, mentioned in 3 John 12, is made bishop of Philadelphia. 
That dirofevia was a duty everywhere incumbent upon the Christians is 
evidenced by 3 John 8; cf. Tit. iii. 14; 1 Tim. v.10; Rom. xii. 13; Heb. 
xiii. 2; 1 Pet. iv.9; but because it was the duty of the Church, it was a 
special obligation on the part of those at the head of the Church (1 Tim. 
iii. 2; Tit. i.8; Herm. Sim. ix. 27; Just. Apol. i. 67). Letters of introduc- 
tion in the apostolic Church were always directed to the Church (Rom. xvi. 1 ; 
2 Cor. iii. 1, viii. 23f.; Polyc. ad Phil. xiv.). 

4, (P. 375.) The reading ¢ypaya dy instead of ri, ver. 9, is due either to 
the feeling that it is improper for an apostle to confess that he is powerless 
against the Church, or, less probably, if the reference to 2 John is denied, to 
the desire to avoid the necessity of assuming a lost letter. It is of itself quite 
conceivable that John should say that in a letter to the Church he had already 
made the same request and recommendation that he does in 3 John, knowing, 
however, that it was useless, because Diotrephes would use his influence against 
it. But (1) in that case we should have, instead of ri, rather rep rovroy, 
avré rovro, or some similar expression; (2) it is hardly likely that John would 
have made his request of the Church when he knew that it would he refused 


382 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


because of the opposition of Diotrephes ; (3) it is certain also on other grounds 
that our 2 John is here meant, which says nothing concerning the introduction 
of travelling Christians. The situation, therefore, is rather that outlined 
above, pp. 374, 381. 

5. (P. 375.) Of course, after the constant use of the personal pronoun “I” 
in the letter, the juas in vv. 9 and 10 caunot mean John alone, nor John and 
all who thought as he did, for the reason that the reference here is not to 
the hospitable reception of travelling brethren, as in ver. 10), but to the 
recognition of authority and respect for exhortations. Consequently the 
reference here, as in 1 John i. 1-4, iv. 6, 14, must be to John and the other 
eye-witnesses who were in the province ; above, p. 357 f. 

6. (P. 376.) The word diAdrporos= English, ambitious (Artemid. ii. 32; 
Plut. Mor. 844 E), does not mean one who is not yet mpdéros, any more than 
gurdpyvpos means a poor man merely desirous of obtaining money (ef. 
Prdroyos, Pirdcopos, Pirdruuos, Pirdrovos, Gidrdvecxos, idrdgevos). It can 
refer to persons of distinction, ambitiously inclined, who lay undue weight 
upon their position as such and misuse it, as well as to those who are desirous 
of winning such a position for the first time (cf. Matt. xxiii. 6= Mark xii. 38f.; 
Clem. Zp. ad Jac. li. 7 rovairn xaOédpa (the bishop’s chair) ov didoxabedpodvros 
moApnpod xpeiav éxer, Iren. iv. 26. 3 speaks of presbyters, 7.¢. of holders of the 
mpotoxabedpia (cf. Clem. Strom. vi. 106f.; Herm. Vis. iii. 9. 7), who con- 
tumeliis agunt reliquos et principalis consessionis (mpwroxabedpias) tumore elati 
sunt; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 6. To this class belongs Diotrephes, although, according 
to 3 John 9-10, he is not, like the mponyovpevor rijs éxxAnoias in Rome in the 
time of Hermas (loc. czt., and vol. ii. 124, n. 5), a member of the rpeaBurépiov, 
but a ruler. What John may write to the Church is without effect save as 
Diotrephes allows it to be effective. He determines how travelling Christians 
shall be received. Those who do not submit to his will he excommunicates, 
If there were even moderate opposition on the part of other office-holders, or 
if there were co-operation between him and them, there would be some hint 
of it. Demetrius, who is mentioned in ver. 12, may be a presbyter who 
opposed Diotrephes—an assumption which possibly gets some support from 
the reading éexxAnoias instead of dAnOeias, ver. 12 (see Gwynn, Hermathena, 
1890, p. 304). But in that case the official position of the presbyter, as over 
against the bishop, must have been very weak. Demetrius may also have 
been one of the missionaries (vv. 3-8), the leader of the company of travellers, 
John makes no attempt to weaken the official position of Diotrephes by 
defining the latter’s rights and the rights of others; he simply reproves 
Diotrephes’ opinions, words, and deeds on morai grounds. 

7. (P. 378.) According to Nestle’s edition, 2 John consists of only 33 
lines, of which two contain only a few words, and two are not complete ; 
3 John likewise consists of 33 lines, of which six are incomplete. Counting 
the letters, and allowing 36 letters for the ancient line, gives for 2 John 32 
lines, for 3 John not quite 31 lines; cf. GK, i. 76, ii. 397. The resemblance . 
of style is closer than between Eph. and Col., or between 1 Tim. and Tit. 
Cf. 6 mpecBurepos (without a name)... ods (6v) eyo dyard év adnbeia 
(2 John 1; 3 John 1), eydpyy diay... mepirarodvras év adnOcia, Kabds 
(4 and 3), eipydoace (8 and 5) ; ef. especially 2 John 12, and 3 John 18-14. 

8. (P. 379.) It is true that Kupia does occur, although seidom, as a proper 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 383 


‘hame, and is found in Asia Minor (cf. Sterrett, The Wolfe Exped. p. 188, 
No. 237; p. 389, No. 564; Hypigraph. Journey, p. 167, No. 159), as does also 
Kvpios, which is found even in the Talmud, Jer. Shabbath, 7c; Beza, 61d; 
ef. the Aramaic name Martha, with the meaning kupia. Tiven if this render- 
ing were possible in 2 John 5, it is out of the question in ver. 1, where we 
should certainly expect Kupia rf éxdexry (cf. ver. 13; Rom. xvi. 13, cf. 8-10, 
and the entire list of names in this passage where similar epithets are used ; 
see also Ion. Smyrn. xiii. 2). Neither can xvpia be the title of a woman of 
rank ; because, in the first place, the early Christians by common consent 
refrained from the use of such titles (above, p. 81, n. 3); in the second place, 
while such a title might be used in address (ver. 5; cf. Phil. iv. 3; 1 Tim. 
vi. 11), ina greeting it would have to stand in apposition to a proper name 
(1 Tim. i.2; Philem. 1). While S? S® transcribe xcvpia as a proper name, 
éxXex7n is so taken by Clement of Alexandria. He seems to have discovered 
the same name in ver. 13 also, where he construed it in apposition to gov. 
On this basis he appears to have justified the identification of the woman 
addressed in 2 John as "Exdex77 with the ovvexdextn of 1 Pet. v.13. In this 
way he makes her a Babylonian, and maintains that under existing political 
conditions she and her children, who are likewise addressed, were Parthians. 
In this way arose the mythical title or subscription to 2 John, mpds IdpOous 
(misread map@évous by the Latin translator of Clement). In the West this 
was transferred to 1 John, and even to all three of the Epistles (cf. Forsch. 
iii. 92, 99 ff.). The opinion that xvpia is a figurative name for a local 
church is not a new discovery (cf. Scholion of Matthei, pp. 153 and 242, 
where, however, the question as to whether the reference is to a man or 
to a church is left undecided) ; Jerome, Hp. exxiii. 12, Val.? 1.909. Since 
1 Pet. was highly esteemed by the disciples of John in Asia, to which 
province the Epistle was directed, it is not unlikely that John was acquainted 
with it, and that 1 Pet. v.13 led him to personify the Church, and to employ 
the word éxAexrdés, which is very rarely used by him elsewhere (only in John 
i. 34, above, p. 284, n. 2, and Rev. xvii. 17). The Church is not only the bride 
of Christ (John iii. 29; Rev. xxii. 14), but also His wife (Rev. xxi. 9; Eph. 
v. 22-32; cf. Rom. vii. 4), and what is true of the Church as a whole is 
applicable to the individual Church (2 Cor. xi. 2), only in this case the Church 
is not “the wife,” but a “wife of the xvpsos,” so that xupia stands without the 
article. The transfer of the name xvpsos in its feminine form to the wife 
is not a customary Jewish, Greek, or Roman usage, but yet it finds a certain 
analogy in the use of the term Shulamute in Cant. vii. 1[Eng. vi. 13], the choice 
of which word is, without prejudice to its original meaning, determined by 
its relation to Solomon. Neither does the interpretation of the word to mean 
an individual woman agree with the contents of the Epistle. If John wished 
to say that he had had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with some of 
this woman’s children while on a visit to their aunt (ver. 13), and of hearing 
that they were good Christians,—while in ver. 1 he assumes the same to be 
true of the woman’s other children, whom he did not know personally,—the 
language of ver. 4 is impossible. This is practically Poggel’s position (work 
cited n. 1), S. 137 ff. Moreover, the greeting in ver. 3, the apostolic fulness 
and solemnity of which are in strong contrast to the almost secular tone of 
3 John 2 (vol. i. 78, n. 2; 119, n. 7), shows that it is not a friendly family 


384. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


which is here addressed, but a Church in which there was much to be desired 
in the way of grace, compassion, peace, love, and truth. 

9. (P. 379.) It is assumed that eipydoacde (Iren. ili. 16.8; Lucifer, p. 
29; NA S? S%) is the correct reading in 2 John 8. The recollection of such 
passages as 1 Thess. iii. 5; Gal. iv. 11; Phil. ii. 16, caused the correction to 
eipyacdpeba (B Sah. Vulg. Cop. margin of 8%, 2.e. Egyptian texts), in con- 
formity to which were written dmodécopey and dmodrdBopev (KLP, 2.0. 
Antiochian texts), whereas, as a matter of fact, John vi. 27-29, 1 Thess. 
i, 3, are a close analogy. 


§ 72. THE NATURE, STRUCTURE, AND UNITY OF 
REVELATION. 


The book which we are accustomed to call the Revelation 
of John after its author, who speaks of himself repeatedly 
by name (i. 1, 4, 9, xxii. 8), styles itself the revelation of 
Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to impart to His 
servants, announcing through it prophetically what must 
shortly come to pass. In carrying out this divine com- 
mission, Jesus, through His angel, imparted the revelation 
given Him to His servant John, who committed to writing 
all that it had been given him to see, and so presented, in 
his book, the word of God and the testimony of Christ 
(i. 1-2, n. 1); for in the last analysis it is God who speaks 
to John, and Christ who testifies to him. 

The decision to put into writing the revelation which 
he had received, and to send it to seven Churches of Asia, - 
was not his own ; it was the execution of a task repeatedly 
imposed upon him in the vision, both as regards the whole 
of what he had seen, and in respect of its separate parts 
Gel 19) i..1, 8; ete, xiveL3, xix. 9) xe1.15; xe 
Only once is he forbidden to write down a communication 
made to him (x. 4). The condition in which he represents 
himself when he saw and heard that which goes to make 
up the contents of his book is described as one of ecstasy, 
and his seeing and hearing as that of a vision (i. 10, iv. 2, 
n. 1). On the other hand, when the revelation comes to 
him through an angel, even when the appearance is not a 
visible and audible one (i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16, n. 1), the author 


a, TS SS 


\ 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 385 


will have us understand that the ecstatic state and all the 
events therein experienced and impressions therein received 
are the direct results of the influence upon his nature, of 
this heavenly messenger. It is upon this origin of the 
book and its contents that the author bases the conscious- 
ness that in it he has, as a human witness (i. 2; cf. xxii. 
8, 18), presented the word of God and the testimony of 
Christ ; and thus has the right to call his work a revelation 
(i. 1) and a word and book of prophecy (i. 8, xxii. 7, 10, 
18, 19). It is but another way of expressing the same 
thing when this communication to John, and through him 
to different persons and Churches, is said to be the word of 
the Spirit to those for whom the book is intended (ii. 7, 
11, 17, 29, i. 6, 138, 22; cf. xx. 16); for even the record- 
ing of the revelation, bidden as he is to make it, is a 
mpogpyteve (x. 11), and what the prophet speaks or writes 
is everywhere a declaration of the Spirit (Acts xxi. 11, 
ween ty: 1; 1 Thess: v.19 f, n. 2). 

The Revelation of John consequently takes its place as 
a part of Christian prophecy, which, as a source of know- 
ledge, edification, and action, was such a powerful and 
highly esteemed manifestation of the Spirit in the time of 
the apostles. Revelation is distinguished from the other 
products of this Christian prophecy merely in the fact 


that it is a written record of revelation received ; whereas 


the prophets, so far as we know, had up to this time 
contented themselves with oral utterance. In this Reve- 
lation becomes a continuation of the writings of the 
O.T. prophets (n. 2). An understanding of the contents, 
origin, and value of Revelation, indeed even of the mean- 
ing of many individual passages, and of the nature of 
the book itself, is impossible until one has at least stated 
clearly the question with what right the author speaks thus 


of himself and of his book, and has answered it with the 


candour which is indispensable in scientific thinking. It 
is a misuse of language to speak of the author of the book 
VOL, III, 25 


386 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as the “Seer,” and to hold at the same time that he saw 
nothing but some books lying about him within the light 
of his study lamp; while it is a violation of the laws of 
historical criticism to assume that the author himself was 
as confused in regard to the origin of the pictures repre- 
sented as his visions, as are many scholars who seek to 
explain them. His statements mentioned just above leave 
nothing to be desired in the way of clearness; and the 
claim which he makes for his rendering of the revelations 
received (i. 2 f., xxii. 18 f.) bears no evidence of uncertainty. 
When, as author of the book, he represented himself to be 
a witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus, 
he must have known as well as Paul, as a preacher, that 
there are false witnesses, who report as facts things which 
have never occurred (1 Cor. xv. 15). He protests the 
same horror at all lying (xxi. 27, xxii. 15; cf. xiv. 5) as 
the John of the Gospel and of the Epistles. In declaring 
his book to be prophetic—ranking himself thus on the one 
hand with the prophets of the O.T., and on the other with 
those of the apostolic age—he does not claim absolute 
infallibility ; for the prophets of the apostolic age had to 
subject themselves to the criticism of their fellow-Christians, 
and were under necessity of being cautioned against un- 
natural excitement, and the infusion of their own thoughts 
and desires into what was given them by the Spirit (n. 2). 
But there is no doubt that, in so estimating himself and 
his book, he assures us of the absence of any conscious 
admixture of this sort. On the other hand, every Christian 
prophet of that time must have been conscious of the con- 
trast between the true and the false prophets who appeared 
among them, especially one who was acquainted with such 
persons in his immediate neighbourhood (Rev. ii. 20; 1 John — 
iv. 1, cf. Matt. vii, 15-23, xxiv. 11, 24; Luke vi. 26; 

2 Pet. ii. 1; Rev. xix. 20). These are, without exception, ; 
depicted as immoral men, and in some cases as preachers 
of false doctrine. But the idea of false prophets involves — 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 387 


neither immorality nor false teaching (n. 2, end); it is 
rather the pretending to be a prophet and to have received 
divine revelation without this really having been the case 
(Rev. u. 20; Jer. xiv. 14; Deut. xvii. 20-22). They are 
to be known by their fruits in life and in doctrine ; but to 
these fruits belongs, first of all, the sincerity of their state- 
ments as to the origin of their preaching. In the case of 
the early Christian, there can be no suspicion of confusion 
in regard to these elemental truths. From the name 
amoxdduwis, a title never borne by any writing before the 
time of Revelation, has been divined the idea of an 
“apocalyptic literature.” The determining features of 
this class of writing (n. 3) are secured, however, not from 
the specific peculiarities of the Revelation of John, but 
from certain formal similarities between it and the Book 
of Enoch, the Book of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book 
of Jubilees, IV Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the 
Sibylline Oracles, the Ascension of Moses, and the 
Ascension of Isaiah. Even if one considers the Book of — 
Daniel, the first specimen of the ‘“‘ apocalyptic literature,” 
on the assumption that it was composed about 168 B.o., 
common sense and an uncorrupted taste rebel at placing in 
the same literary group the Revelation of John, although 
it be the one from which the group has been named. A 
presentation of the world’s historical development in the 
form of prophecy purporting to be of an earlier date, if 
it occurs at all in Revelation, isan entirely subordinate 
feature of the book. 

As far as the pseudonymy is concerned, which consti- 
tutes the very essence of this literature, who can compare 
the name of Enoch or Moses, or even Daniel, Baruch, or 
Ezra, with that of John! The writers of these books 
transported themselves hundreds and thousands of years 
into the past, clothed themselves with the illustrious names 
of hoary antiquity, and then addressed themselves to the 
credulous public of their own day, without even so much 


388 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as fabricating a personal relationship to it. In Revelation, 
on the other hand, a man speaks to seven Churches of the 
province of Asia, and commits to them his book. He is 
accurately acquainted with their present condition (§ 73), 
and speaks to them under the name of John—a name 
which circa 70-100 was borne by the most prominent 
ecclesiastical personality in that region; and all this is 
done, according to tradition, circa 95, we. at a time when 
the celebrated John of Ephesus was still living, and, by 
any conceivable hypothesis, at a time when the personal 
disciples of this John were yet alive. Although no intelli- 
gent person to-day believes that Enoch or Ezra wrote the 
books which bear their names, or that the daughter of 
Noah proclaimed the future in Homeric verses, but recog- 
nises the artificial character of such inventions, we have 
here to do with the product of the Christian Church in 
a time when visions, inspirations of different kinds and 
preaching based upon them, were part of the accepted 
order of the day. According to the testimony of Paul, 
the Book of Acts, and the literature of the Early Church, 
certain things, in spite of all the contemporary criticism, 
had maintained their character in the consciousness of the 
Church as a product of the prophetic spirit, independent 
of the personal desire and opinion of the speaker. He who 
has not the courage to characterise everything of this sort 
as artificial patchwork or pseudo-prophecy, has no right to 
treat a book, originating in that time and representing 
itself to be a book of prophecy based upon visionary 
experiences, as an artificial literary product, or a mixture 
of the effects of ecstatic states and the painstaking art of 
a man of letters at variance with the spirit of his time. 
Especially is this impossible when we consider that it was 
immediately recognised as contemporary and genuine by 
the Churches to which it was directed. To write a book 
on the basis of visions experienced is, of course, literary 
work which cannot be produced so mechanically as the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 389 


impressions of a photographic plate. That the recording 
of the visions received may be a mpogntevew (x. 11), the 
prophet who employs the medium of writing must, to the 
same degree as the one who speaks orally to the congrega- 
tion, reproduce vividly the apocalypsis which he has 
received. He must also have the prophetic spirit, which, 
however, does not, as in the state of ecstatic vision, raise 
his consciousness above the external world and limit his 
individual activity, but awakens and stimulates it to pro- 
phetic enthusiasm. But it does not follow from this that 
the book is an artificial product of the artist, which de- 
liberately deviates from the content of the vision which 
he has seen. It would in so doing lose the very claim 
which it makes. The book cannot be understood without 
taking the standpoint of the author and his first readers ; 
so that we must assume, if only for the sake of argument, 
that John in i. 10—xxii. 16 is giving an account of visions 
which he has really experienced. 

Disregarding for the time being the extended title of © 
the book, John gives it the form of an epistle to “the 
Seven Churches in Asia.” As in the apostolic Epistles, 
he begins with an address (i. 4—5a), in which he speaks of 
himself and of the recipients of the letter in the third 
person ; but, like Paul and Peter, and in contrast to the 
antique epistolary style, drops into the direct address— 
using “ you” and “we” (including “I”)—when he comes 
to the greeting itself, A doxology follows (vv. 5b-6 ; cf. 
Eph. i. 8; 1 Pet. i. 3), which is separated by an Amen 
from the next two sentences, that furnish a hint of the 
contents of the following writing. After this there comes 
an announcement of the return of Christ (ver. 7), given 
from the standpoint of the writer and strengthened by 
vai, auyv, and an utterance of the almighty God (ver. 8). 
The Epistle in which John speaks of himself throughout 
in the first person (i. 9, xxi. 8, 18)—a form to be expected 
in letter-writing—begins at this point. The fact that— 


390 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


except for the words of Christ addressed to the individual 
Churches and their leaders (ii. 1-11. 22)—the readers are 
not again addressed after i. 9 or in the closing greeting 
(n. 4), shows that the epistolary form, as in the case of 
many didactic and historical writings of that time (above, 
pp. 42, 81, n. 2, 223, n. 1), is intended merely to express in a 
clear manner the fact that the account is especially designed 
for certain definite readers. But this casting of the whole 
book in the form of an epistle does not exclude the use of 
a book title, any more than in other literature; indeed, 
this would be more in accord with common custom. It 
was all the more natural not to leave the book without a 
title, since its epistolary form might cause it, after a single 
reading, to be laid aside. But the author is persuaded of 
the importance of its contents for the Churches. It takes 
its place beside the ‘‘ prophetical books” which the Church 
had inherited from Israel, as one of the same kind. It is 
to be to her an eternal possession, which she is to protect, 
as a sacred treasure, from every violation (xxu. 18 f.), and 
use diligently until the longed-for return of Christ (xxii. 
17, 20), v.e. she is to make it accessible to her members 
by reading it in the meetings at public worship (i. 3; cf. 
2,7, 11, ete, xxii. 10, 17). Furthermore, the author is 
convinced that the contents of the book are designed and 
have significance not only for the seven Churches to which 
it is sent as an epistle, but for all the servants of God and 
of Christ (i. 1, xxii. 6)—for the whole of Christendom 
(xxii. 17), His Bride. 

The Churches to which the prophetic spirit speaks 
through this book (ii. 7, 11, 17, 29; ii. 6, 18, 22, xxii. 
16) are doubtless primarily the seven Churches of Asia; 
though its range of vision and purpose extend far beyond 
these to all the Churches (ii. 23). But just because the 
book was in the form of an epistle to the seven Churches, 
it was necessary by means of a formal book title to give 
expression to the fact that it was intended for the whole 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 391 


Church, and for reading at divine service. A little reflec- 
tion might have saved the writers of more recent literature 
on Revelation and their readers any surprise that the 
author, who in the body of the book speaks of himself in 
the first person, should employ the third person in the 
title (n. 5). There are also many things difficult to under- 
stand which vanish when one bears in mind that the 
make-up of the book presupposes that all of the preceding 
visions have already been seen (n. 6), and by remembering 
that under normal conditions, especially in ancient times 
(above, p. 80, n. 1), the title is the part of the book last 
written, just as it is to-day the part last printed. Therefore 
the writer is looking backward in the title not only on the 
revelations received at an earlier time (vv. 1, 2b, cider), 
but also upon his completed literary activity (ver. 2a, 
éuaptvpyncev), and he pictures to himself the near future 
when the dvayvworns will read the book before the as- 
sembled congregation (ver. 3). But even when he begins 
to put in writing the book opening with i. 4, the visions - 
lie behind him, their content being present to his mind; 
and his mode of expression acquires a definiteness which 
can be accounted for only by them. Since ini. 11 seven 
local Churches lying in the province of Asia are designated 
by him as those to whom he is to send the completed 
book, and since, in the course of the first vision, he 
receives the commission to speak to each of the congrega- 
tions a special word, which, as a constituent part of the 
book directed to all seven of them, each will receive, read, 
and hear (n. 6), these seven Churches must have been 
definitely present in his mind from the start (i. 4). 

It is not the Churches of Asia which are here alluded 
to (cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 1,19; Gal. i. 2),—as though there were 
not in this province, even as early as the time of Paul, 
independent congregations at Colosse, Hierapolis, and 
Troas (Col. i. 1, ii. 1, iv. 13; Acts xx. 6ff.; 2 Cor. iil, 12; 
2 Tim. iv. 13),—but the seven Churches designated by the 


392 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


angel which are all to be found in Asia. The definiteness 
with which he also speaks in 1. 4 of the seven spirits before 
the throne of God, where, on the analogy of 2 Cor. xiii. 
18, 1 Pet. i. 2, one would expect instead to find but one, 
is to be explained on the basis of the vision in which the 
Spirit revealed itself to John in the form of seven torches 
before the throne of God, and as the seven eyes of the 
lamb standing by it (iv. 5, v. 6). In Rev. i 7, xiv. 3, 
xxii. 17, however, it is the one spirit who is spoken of. 
One may characterise the definiteness of expression in 
i. 4, which is conditioned in this way, as literary awkward- 
ness; but at any rate it bears witness to the origin of the 
written account, in visions previously experienced. 

The division of the account into the two unequal parts 
i. 10-11. 22 and iv. 1-xxii. 9, corresponds to the division 
of the subject-matter of all the visions into that which 
already existed at the time of the revelation, and that 
which is to come to pass in the future (i. 19, n. 6). The 
first part represents a single vision. John is sojourning 
upon the island Patmos. It is the Lord’s Day. While 
the apostle is in an ecstatic state, Christ reveals Himself 
to him, in priestly array, as the Lord who rules in His 
Church, and who judges it with the sword of His word, 
and duriug the whole vision continues to speak to the 
apostle who has fallen at His feet, and through him to 
the “angels” of the seven Churches. At the close there 
is no mention of the vanishing of the vision or of the 
cessation of the ecstasy; but both are presupposed in 
Cagle 

The indefinite term pera ratra, iv. 1 (ef. vii. 9, xv. 5; 
John v. 1, vi. 1), may denote hours and days quite as well 
as a very short intermission. As John tells nothing at all 
of the execution of the command to write out what he has 
seen, it is possible that in the intermission that occurred 
he may have proceeded with the writing down of the first 
vision, i. 10-i11. 22. According to iv. 2, John falls again 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 393 


into a trance, which presupposes that he had returned to 
consciousness ; and the fact that the voice of the angel who 
shows him what he sees is said to be the same as that 
which spoke to him in i. 10, enables us to recognise the 
beginning of another revelation. No feature of the picture 
which John had before him during the first vision passes 
over into the new one. When Christ appears later, it is 
in another form (v. 6, xix. 11), nor does He ever again 
speak with the apostle face to face (on xxi. 10-16, 20, 
see n. 4). In the second vision (iv. 1-viii. 1), which is 
interrupted toward the close by two episodes (vii. 1-8, 
9-17), John feels himself transported to heaven and 
beholds the Creator and Ruler of the world (chap. iv.) 
sitting upon His throne adorned with the attributes of 
His might over the world, surrounded by the council of 
His spirits, and unceasingly praised by all the adoring 
creatures of heaven. Not until John has received the 
impression of this picture as a whole does he become 
conscious of a AiPdov on the right of the Enthroned, 
which is written only within, and on the back close sealed 
with seven seals (v. 1, n. 7). When it becomes evident 
that in the whole circle of creation no one can be found 
who would be able by loosing the seals to open the PuBrtov 
and read the writing contained in it, John breaks out into 
loud weeping over the fact, but is comforted by one of the 
twenty-four elders who sit around the throne of God, and 
reminded him of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, who has 
won a victory by virtue of which He can break the seven 
seals and open the book. Only now does John observe in 
the vision a Lamb, standing in the midst of the throne, 
and bearing marks as though it had been slain. This 
Lamb, amidst the songs of praise from the spirits of 
heaven, and from all creatures, receives from the hand 
of God the &:8Atov, and breaks in succession its seven seals 
(vi. 1—-vili. 1). 

The word :8riov itself permits of a great many inter- 


394 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


pretations, but for the readers of that time it was desig- 
nated by the seven seals on its back beyond the possibility 
of mistake. Just as in Germany before the introduction 
of money-orders, every one knew that a letter sealed with 
five seals contained money, so the most simple member of 
the Asiatic Churches knew that a A18dov made fast with 
seven seals was a testament (n. 8). When the testator dies 
the testament is brought forward, and, when possible, 
opened in the presence of the seven witnesses who sealed 
it; %e. unsealed, read aloud, and executed. The making 
of a will assumes that the death of the testator lies in the 
future, while its opening and execution imply that his 
death has taken place. But, as is well known, the Chris- 
tians of earliest times, although mindful of the fact that 
God does not die (Heb. ix. 16f) and that omne simile 
claudicat, do not hesitate to imagine the property sup- 
posed to belong to God, to His Son, and to His Church, 
and the entrance of the Church into possession of it, under 
the figure of inheritance (heritage and inheriting), and 
accordingly, to compare the assurance of these properties 
on God’s part with a testamentary disposition. Jesus 
Himself uses the figure (Luke xxii. 29, cf. Matt. v. 5, 
xxi. 38, xxv. 34; Mark xii. 7; Luke xx. 14), and all the 
N.T. writers (Gal. ii, 15-iv. 7; Rom. vii. 17 ff; Eph. 
#14, 18, v: 5; Cok i. 12, ii. 24; 1 Pete. 4: Hebe 
vi. 17, viii. 6, 1x. 15 ff.; Jas. ii. 5). So also here, the 
document fastened with seven seals is an easily understood 
symbol of the promise and assurance by God to His 
Church of the future Bacirela, This irrevokable dispo- 
sition of God, similar to a man’s testamentary disposition 
of his goods, has long ago occurred, been documented and 
sealed, but not yet carried out. The inheritance is still 
laid up in heaven (1 Pet. i. 4), and the testament there- 
fore not yet opened and executed. That its content has 
been proclaimed through the prophets, and through Jesus 
and the Spirit which rules in the Church (1 Cor. ii. 10), 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 395 


and has to a certain extent become known, does not destroy 
its resemblance to a sealed testament still waiting to be 
opened, any more than the oral communication of a human 
testator, concerning the content of his will, destroys the 
importance of the document and renders its opening 
unnecessary. Apart from the fact that the heritages 
promised to the Church are to exceed all previous human 
experience, imagination, and anticipation (1 Cor. ii. 7-9, 
xii. 12; 1 John i. 2), and that not until they are 
delivered over will their true nature be disclosed (Rom. 
vill. 18), the point of comparison, since the promise of 
future glory and royal dominion is likened to a sealed 
will, lies not so much in the fact that no one knows the 
contents, as that they still await realisation. No one is 
authorised to open the testament and thereby to put into 
execution the will of God therein laid down, except the 
Lamb, who by dying gained the victory like a lion, and 
delivered the Church (v. 5, 9f.). The returning Christ 
will open the testament of God and execute it. The fact 
that a will is opened by breaking all the seven seals at one 
time, but that in the vision the seals are broken one after 
the other by the Lamb, and that the opening of each seal 
is accompanied by a vision (vi. 1-17, viii. 1), does not 
destroy the applicability of the symbolism. At the same 
time, the breaking of the seals of a testament is a com- 
plicated act, which may be divided into seven operations, 
and which primarily prepares the way for its opening and 
execution. For this reason it is well adapted to show 
what, through the returned Christ, preparatory to vt must 
precede the final fulfilment of the promise. The visions 
which occur as the first six seals are opened naturally 
bear upon the contents of the still unopened testament 
in this way: (1) the word of God must take its victorious 
way through the world (vi. 2, cf. Matt. xxiv. 14); (2) 
bloody wars must come (ver. 3 f., cf. Matt. xxiv. 6; Mark 
xiii. 7); (8) times of scarcity (ver. 5f.); (4) plagues 


396 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


destroying part of the people (ver. 7 f., cf. Matt. xxiv. 7 ; 
Luke xxi. 11); then (5) bloody persecutions of the Church, 
the punishment for which is delayed (vv. 9-11, cf. Matt. 
xxiv. 9; Mark xiii. 11-13); but at last (6) events in 
nature which are to convulse the world and fill earthly 
despots with terrible anticipation of the wrath of God and 
of the Lamb which is about to be outpoured upon them 
(vv. 12-17, cf. Matt. xxiv. 29f.; Luke xxi. 25, xxiii. 30). 
After the events which prepare the way for the end have 
thus led up almost to the day of the parousia, the opening 
of the seventh seal can bring only the parousia itself. 
But this is also to be seen from the figure of the testa- 
ment itself with its seven seals; for with the loosing of 
the seventh seal the testament is opened and will there- 
upon be executed. But instead of there being any 
description of this act or the statement that it has 
occurred, a silence of about half an hour intervenes 
in heaven, where the apostle has been since iv. 1 
(viii. 1), and neither here nor in the further course of the 
narrative does there follow anything which can be taken 
to be the phenomena accompanying the opening of the 
seventh seal. 

When, therefore, in place of an apocalyptic descrip- 
tion of the opening of the testament—.e. the induction 
of the Church into the inheritance vouchsafed by God 
through Christ, the opener and executor of the will—this 
long silence occurs, it may be meant that not only is this 
act, which has been prepared for by the opening of the 
six seals, not to be described now or at all by word or 
picture, but also that this silence is a symbol of the 
condition which has thereby come upon the Church. God’s 
people have entered into the Sabbath rest promised them 
(Heb. iv. 1-11). 

This was all the easier to understand, since both the 
inserted episodes (vil. 1-8, 9-17) answer the pressing 
question as to what the condition of the Church is to be 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 397 


during the world-convulsing events immediately preceding 
the parousia (vi. 12-17), which is now described under 
the new figure of a devastating storm (vii. 1ff.). The 
first answer is that one hundred and forty-four thousand of 
the people of Israel will be kept from this world-disaster 
and saved out of the midst of it (vii. 3-8). But the 
further question as to how it will be at that time with a 
much larger congregation collected from all the nations 
(vil. 9; cf. v. 9), is answered by the second episode: they 
are taken up into heaven, dying, from the final tribulation 
of the Church (a familiar idea, vu. 14; cf. Matt. xxiv. 
15-28) which was alluded to in ii. 10 and vi. 11b, and 
there enjoy the repose of the blessed. 

The impression that the silence in heaven, after the 
opening of the last seal, lasted about half an hour (viii 
1), could not but have constituted a sharp division 
for the apostle’s consciousness, before whose eyes the 
vision of iv. 1-vii. 1 must have passed in a much shorter 
time. With viii. 2—xi. 18 comes a third vision, which is 
interrupted before the seventh trumpet- blast by two 
episodes (x. 1-11, xi. 1-14), just as the second vision is 
interrupted by two episodes before the seventh seal is 
opened. In viii. 2 we do not hear, as in iv. 2, of another 
ecstasy. The scene of action and the place where the 
apostle is stationed remain the same as in iv. 2—viii. 1. 
Nothing follows, however, which can be made to connect 
with the opening and execution of the testament by the 
returning Christ; but a description begins here which 
refers back to a point preceding this time, and one which, 
as the reference to vil. 3 in ix. 4 shows, takes us back to 
a point immediately preceding the parousia. As a conse- 
quence of the first four trumpet-blasts (vil. 6-12), which 
are separated by ver. 13 from the three following, occur 
catastrophes in nature, which in each case affect one part 
of the earth only ; while, as a result of the fifth and sixth 
trumpet-blasts, such judgments are pronounced as affect 


398 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


men themselves, without, however, moving them to re- 
pentance (ix. 1-21). 

At the seventh blast of the trumpet, which is closely 
connected with the fifth and sixth by ix. 12, xi 14, in 
spite of their being separated by the episode in x. 1—xi. 14, 
there is again, as in the case of the opening of the seventh 
seal, no description of what happens; but we have here 
expressed by the songs of praise in heaven, just as in the 
former case by the silence, what takes place when the 
seventh act is performed. God and Christ have begun 
their world rule (xi. 15): God is no longer the One 
who is to come in the future (xi. 17; cf. per contra i, 4, 
6 épxduevos), but the One who has come to judgment in 
order to punish enemies and to reward the godly. It is, 
in fact, the “last trump,” of which Christian prophecy had 
already spoken elsewhere (1 Cor. xv. 52; 1 Thess. iv. 12). 
As announced beforehand in x. 7, and as we saw in viii. 1, 
the end has again been reached ; but it is not described. 

The first episode expresses the thought that the 
apostle is not to communicate to the Church (x. 4) every- 
thing which he sees, but that he shall later experience and 
preach to the Church more than formerly the judgments 
of God upon the nations (x. 8-11). 

Jerusalem, the once holy city, forms a contrast to the 
heathen; in punishment for the crucifixion of Jesus, it 
has, like Sodom and Egypt, experienced judgments which 
have brought it nigh unto destruction (n. 9). By the 
chronological statement (ver. 26) we are transported into 
the time of the last calamity brought about by the anti- 
christ, made familiar by Dan. vil. 25, xii. 7, 11. This 
tribulation will extend even unto Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv. 
15-24), and at that very place will reach its culmination 
in the killing of the two prophets who are still to be a 
last protection to the Church; but a sacred area, and a 
congregation of the true worshippers of God remain, pro- 
tected from the antichrist (xi. 1f.; cf. vii. 3-8, ix. 4); and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 399 


even the people of Jerusalem, who do not belong to 
this congregation, will, after a severe judgment, repent 
(xi. 13). 

A fourth vision (xi. 19-xiv. 20) is introduced by a 
view of the Ark of the Covenant, set up in the Holy of 
Holies. The forms in which it is presented are borrowed 
from the O.T. sanctuary, but the expressions used show 
that the technical terms are not employed as familiar 
names for the objects themselves, but in accordance with 
the real meaning of the terms, and as symbols for higher 
things. It is the temple of God in heaven which is 
meant, in which there is no longer any barrier to shut out 
from view the holy of holies (Heb. vi. 19f, ix. 8-12); 
and what the apostle sees is the ark in which the ScaOj«n 
of God is deposited: ae. no longer the long-vanished 
tables of the Law, but the documents of the eternally 
valid testament of God. The conception is similar to 
that of the sealed testament in v. 1, with but the differ- 
ence that in the former instance the expressions are 
borrowed from the heathen legal institutions, while here 
they are taken from the holy institutions of Israel. In 
the former instance the subject is that which God has 
promised to His Church collected from all nations, includ- 
ing Israel; in the latter case, that which He has promised 
His Church in so far as it is the continuation of the O.T. 
Church and realises its purpose in a believing Israel. 

The first readers of this must have understood the 
vision, xi. 19—xiv. 20, more easily than we; for this idea, 
which was already alluded to in the prophecy of Jesus, 
and which Paul had before him in developed form, could 
not have been strange to them; and they were well 
acquainted with the preaching of Christian prophecy— 
drawn chiefly from the Book of Daniel—concerning the 
last battle of the rebellious power of the world with the 
Church, and concerning the antichrist (1 John ii. 18, 
above, p. 371, n. 5, also vol. i 228 ff). It is of a 


400 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


thoroughly eschatological character in the narrower sense 
of the term. The same is true according to xv. 1 and 
Xvi. 17 (yéyovev) of the fifth vision (xv. 1-xvi. 17), in 
which the last judgments, which are comparable to the 
plagues of Egypt, and which in vain call men to repent- 
ance, are represented in the form of seven angels who 
pour out vials full of the wrath of God. In the seath 
vision (xvii. 1—xvili. 24), introduced by xvi. 18-21, an 
incident already touched upon in xiv. 8, xvi. 19—the 
judgment upon Babylon, the metropolis of the antichrist 
—is depicted in a retrospective view of her history. The 
songs of praise, which are directly connected with this 
vision, glorify the fall of Babylon as the beginning of the 
kingly dominion of God and as a last event before the 
marriage of the Lamb, 2.e., before the final union of Christ 
with the Church which is now prepared for it (xix. 1-8). 
In this will participate, however, according to the word of 
the directing angel (xix. 9, 10), not only those then living, 
but all who have ever obeyed the invitation to the wed- 
ding and have held fast the witness of Jesus. 

With this the seventh vision (xix. 11—xxi. 18) is intro- 
duced. Here is at last represented the event which was 
by intimation anticipated as far back as vill. 1 and again 
in xi. 15-18, and in xix. 7 announced as being in the 
immediate future. Jesus Himself comes upon the scene 
of action in order that, after overcoming antichrist and 
binding Satan, He may enter upon His kingly rule of a 
thousand years upon earth,—a reign in which there shall 
participate not only the congregation who live to witness 
His coming, but also those who remained true till death, 
and who on that day are to be brought to life. Not till 
the millennium has expired do the general judgment, the 
destruction of death, and the creation of a new world 
take place. In this new world there is also a new 
Jerusalem. It is this city which is unveiled before the 
eyes of John in a last and eeghth vision, xxi. 8—xxii. 5 (or 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 401 


—xxii. 15). However, it is not conceived of as a part of 
the new world, but, during the period of the kingly rule 
of Christ, as the glorified centre of a world not yet com- 
pleted, to. be transformed into a new and eternal world 
(n. 10) when the kingly rule of Christ is over. With this 
the course of the story closes most appropriately ; for the 
longing of the Church is directed not to an endless eternity, 
but to the specific coming of Jesus into union with His 
Church, and to His royal reign, limited in time, but 
broadening out into eternity (xxii. 17, 20). 

The foregoing attempt to sketch the structure of 
Revelation was also intended to bring out the evident 
unity of the book, in spite of the lack of all literary art. 
It would have been labour in vain to attempt to refute 
the manifold hypotheses by which Revelation is represented 
to be a patchwork compiled from different writings, partly 
Jewish, partly Christian; inasmuch as this could be done 
convincingly only by means of a complete exegesis (n. 11). 
None of the inventors of such hypotheses has really come 
to satisfactory terms with the tradition concerning the 
origin of Revelation, which extends back to the circle of 
persons and to the times in which it was written. None 
of them seems once to have weighed earnestly the unde- 
niable fact without which the story of the book would 
become wholly inconceivable, namely, that the book, as 
was required by its own statement (i. 11), was delivered 
immediately after its completion to the Churches of Asia 
which stood in close personal relation to the author, was 
received there as a work of the John, who was well known 
to these Churches, and as a true account of visions which 
he had experienced; and as such was read before the 
assembled congregation. None of these scholars has 
supported his claim by an exposition of the book which 
would satisfy even the most modest claims. Several 
matters which ought to be corrected have been stated 
already ; others will be discussed in §§ 73-75. 


VOL, III. 26 


402 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


1. (P. 384.) Inno other writing of the N.T. are the difficulties of literary 
and historical investigation, unaided by a detailed commentary, so great as in 
Rev. The style of the book alone, apart from the peculiarities of its contents, 
makes it very difficult to understand—a fact which has called forth the most 
remarkable interpretations. As regards i. 1-2, it is sufficient to observe that 
€onpavey arooreidas Ova xX. (cf. Matt. xi. 2) agrees in content with drécreev 
.. . beta, xxii. 6; rea... paprupnoa, xxii. 16, which also refers to 
the whole of Rev. with this difference, namely, that onpaivew refers more 
particularly to the prophecy of future events which follows in the form of 
allusions, images, and figurative language (John xii. 33, xviii. 32, xxi. 19; 
Acts xi. 28), while Sexcviva means rather the discloswre to the prophet by the 
display of images of things invisible and future. For the idea of the revealing 
angel, cf. Zech. i. 9, iii. 1, iv. 1; Herm. Mand. procem. § 5; Sim. ix. 1. 1-3, 
and Zahn, Hirt des Hermas, 8. 274 ff. Through this angel, even without his 
becoming visible, John was enabled to hear and to see revelations (iv. 1). 
The reference in the latter verse to i. 10 shows that this is true of the first 
vision, i. 10-iii. 22, just as i. 1, xxii. 6, 8, 16 show it to be the case with all 
the visions of the book. Not until xvii. 1, xix. 9-10, xxi. 9-15, xxii. 1, 6-9 
does the revealing angel become visible to John and communicate with him. 
The fact that the latter presents himself as one of the seven angels with the 
vials of wrath in xv. 1-7, does not prevent John from conceiving of him as 
the angel through whom he received all his revelations. In the account of 
the impressions of his visions, John has no more intention of speaking dog- 
matically or statistically regarding the angelic personages than in i. 1 and 
xxii. 6; he implies that Jesus and God have only one angel at their command 
(cf. Acts xii. 11), or that by dyyedos without an article the evangelist would 
imply in Matt. 1. 20, 11. 13, 19 that the angels which appeared to Joseph were 
in every case different. No special importance is to be attached to the fact 
that in i, 10 f. John’s ecstasy is mentioned before anything is said about what 
he hears and sees through the angel, whereas in iv. 2 the ecstasy appears to 
be a result of the angel’s voice, since in iv. 1 John sees things which he could 
not have seen in a waking state. In iv. 1f. he reproduces accurately sensa- 
tions which he remembered, and which those who can claim no visions are 
able to conceive only by the analogies of sleeping and dreaming. Before 
normal consciousness disappeared completely, he saw a door opened in heaven, 
Then, when he hears again the voice which he heard at the beginning of the 
first vision, he feels himself entirely separated from his earthly surroundings 
and translated to heaven (2 Cor. xii. 2). In this way the command of the 
angel to ascend into heaven is realised, and the vision which follows fulfils 
the angel’s announcement deifo cor. That eyevounv ev rveduars, i. 10, iv, 2 
=yeveoda ev exordce, Acts xxii, 17 (x. 10, xi. 5 in contrast to ev éavré 
yevopevos, Cf. ro mvevpare . . . TG voi, 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 19), means a change into 
an ecstatic condition, does not need to be proved. 

2. (Pp. 385, 386, 387.) For incidental remarks concerning prophecy in the 
N.T. cf. vol. i. 228 ff., 505 f. ; vol. ii. 97f£., 110-118 ; in respect of rd wvedpa see 
vol. i. 207, n. 1, 234, n. 2, 237, n.6; above, p.16. The richest source is 1 Cor, | 
xiv., from which two definite conclusions are to be derived : (1) that prophets, 
in contrast to those speaking with tongues, remain self-conscious and retain 
control of their powers when speaking, using language the form and contents 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 403 


of which are intelligible. (2) So that prophets, as contrasted with teachers 
and preachers without prophetic gifts, do not speak as a result of their 
meditation, investigations, and inferences, but always as a result of a special 
droxddvyis (1 Cor. xiv. 30, cf. vv. 6, 26; Eph. iii. 5). For the criticism to 
which it was necessary to subject even the inspired utterances of the prophets, 
ef. 1 Thess. v. 19-22; 1 Cor. xiv. 29; Rom. xii. 6, and the present writer’s 
lecture on Die bleibende Bedeutung des ntl. Kanons, 8. 36-46. Rev. xviii. 20, 
24 (cf. xvi. 6, xvii. 6, xix. 2; vol. 11. 165, n. 4) refer to N.T. prophets, and 
there is no reason why x. 7, xi. 18 should be taken as having in mind the 
O.T. prophets exclusively and not also those of the N.T. Prophecy is a con- 
tinuous chain, which reaches from the oldest prophets of the O.T. to John, 
their youngest brother (xxii. 6, 9). The analogy of yevdadeAgpos and 
Wrevdarrdatovos shows beyond doubt that the idea of false prophets was 
familiar. Those who are in the habit of lying are not apostles and Chris- 
tians, but persons who say that they are Christians, or apostles, when they 
are not; cf. vol. ii. 232, n. 2. 

3. (P. 387.) Liicke, Komm. tiber die Schriften des Ev. Jo. iv. 1 (1832),—“an 
attempt at a complete introduction to the Revelation of John and the entire 
apocalyptic literature,”—introduced the latter idea. The present writer 
offered some objections to Liicke’s classification in his work on the Hirt des 
Hermas (1868, S. 70 ff.) (which cannot be classified as apocalyptic literature 
any more than can Reyv.), and in his “Apokalyptischen Studien” (Z/KW, 
1885, p. 523 ff.) The latter are quoted in what follows as Ap. Stud. i. (1885) 
and ii. (1886). Herder’s remark (Maranatha, 1779, 8. 13; Werke, ed. Suphan, 
ix. 111), perfectly correct in itself, that the pictures in Rev. cannot be repre- 
sented artistically, or at least not all of them, has had a confusing effect upon 
the interpretation of the book. Diirer and Cornelius knew what could be 
drawn or painted. But from this it does not follow that there is no need to 
reproduce imaginatively the changing scenes of the book in order to under- 
stand them. 

4, (P. 390.) The correct reading of xxii. 21 is either pera mdvrwy without 
rov dyiov (thus B, and S? which adds avrod), and certainly without ipéy, or 
pera Tov dyiov With 8. In xxii. 16 it is not John but Jesus who says dypiv, 
for in xxii. 12 (or 10)-16 Jesus again speaks to John, 7.¢. addresses him together 
with all the other Christians. It will be noted also that this final address of 
Christ as well as the separate saying of Jesus in xxii. 20a are, like the word 
spoken by God in i. 8, outside the visions the series of which ends with xxii. 
8-9 (or -11). God and Christ speak through the prophet, 7.e. through John, 
the author of the book, without becoming visible to him (God in i. 8; Christ 
in xxii. 12-16, 20). 

5. (P. 391.) Volter (Entstehung der Apoc., 2 Aufl. 1885, S. 8f.) holds that 
the later origin of i. 1-3 as compared with i. 4-6 is proved by the fact that in 
vy. 4-6 John introduces himself and declares his relation to the readers, 
whereas vv. 1-3 “are characterised by an objectivity, impossible if the verses 
were written by the apostle John” (similarly also Sprrra, Offend. Joh. 1889, 
S. 10ff., and also J. Wxrss, Offenb. Joh. 1904, 8. 35f.). But Volter overlooks 
the fact that this has always been and is the character of a book title, whether 
written by the author himself or added later. Among the Hebrews (Jer. i. 
1-3 and i. 4) and the Greeks (Herodotus, i. 1, “Hpoddrou “Adtkapynocéos icropins 


404 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dmddeéis Se xrh., cf. on the other hand, ii. 23, éywye oiSa, and wherever he 
speaks of himself as an investigator or narrator), and, as is well known, among 
modern European writers, in the title of a book the author speaks of himself 
in the third person (edzdit), where it is possible, adding all his titles as if he 
were writing his epitaph. On the other hand, in the preface and in the 
course of the book, he allows himself to use the first person—even using the 
familiar “thou” in the dedication to a friend (among the ancients this was 
permissible in the course of the book or at the end—above, p. 223, n.1). On 
the other hand, in a serious book the use of the first person in the title would 
be a violation of style permissible only for novelists, and then in quotation 
marks, e.g. “Graham and I,” “We Two,” “My Wife and I.” In i. 4 also the 
author speaks of himself and the readers in the third person, in a wholly 
objective way, as is required in ancient letter-writing, and allows himself 
only in the extended greeting itself to change to a “you” anda “we.” But 
enough has already been said on this point in vol. i. 369, n. 1; above, 
p. 226, n. 7. 

6. (P. 391, 392.) When John, before seeing anything whatever, is com- 
manded by the voice of the revealing angel: 6 Bdéres ypawov eis BiBdion 
(i. 11), and when in i. 19 (where reference to ver. 11 is indicated by odv) he is 
commanded by Christ Himself: ypayov ody a cides & eiciv kai & wéAhen yevéo Oa 
pera tadra, it is perfectly self-evident that John was not directed to write 
down what he saw while in a state of ecstasy, accompanying as it were the 
visions step by step with his pen at lucid moments in his ecstasy. There is 
no place for such a lucid moment before iv. 1. There is no interruption in 
the discourse of Jesus ini. 17-iii. 22. If the vision were written out while 
the writer was yet in a state of ecstasy, the fact itself would necessarily be 
recorded like the falling down of the prophet (i. 17), and such a procedure 
would destroy the dramatic vividness of the visions. Moreover, it would 
serve no conceivable purpose ; since a record originating in this way would 
itself be of the nature of a vision, 7.c. when the prophet awoke from his ecstatic 
state, it would have no more objective existence than what he had seen in a 
state of ecstasy. Just as the present Bdézeis (ver. 11) has the force of a fut., 
so the aor. eiSes has the force of a fut. perfect (cf. x. 7, xv. 1), and both’alike 
refer to all that John sees in his ecstatic state. There is a corresponding 
division of what John sees and afterwards is to commit to writing into things 
existent in the present and events to take place in the future. To the first 
class belong mainly the contents of chaps. ii.—iii. ; to the second class mainly the 
contents of chaps. iv.-xxii. The division of the contents of all the visions that 
follow is to be understood a potiori, as is also the designation which covers 
the contents of the entire book in i. 1, xxii. 6. Spitta’s interpretation of the 
passage (Offenb. des Joh. 1889, S. 29) as meaning “what thou hast seen up to 
this time and what it means and what may further take place, ¢.c. what may 
further be perceived by thee,” seems to the present writer scarcely to need 
refutation either from a grammatical or logical point of view. Tusa, 
12, 18, iil. 1, 7,14 ypdwWov is naturally to be taken as in i. 11, 19, as a 
command to the writer that when the vision is ended he shall include these 
several sayings to the separate Churches in the book which in i. 11 he is 
directed to write and send to all the seven Churches. One should not speak 
any more, at least in scientific literature, of the seven apocalytic letters, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 405 


These are not independent letters, but each Church receives its special message 
from Christ only as part of the book which, as a whole, is sent to them all 
(i. 4). The same is true of ypayoy in xiv. 13, xix. 9, xxi. 5. In this way 
attention is called to separate sayings particularly worthy of notice. Neither 
can x. 4 be made a basis for the opinion that the writing of the book and the 
seeing of the visions took place at the same time. Since John was to regard 
the recording of the sevenfold voice of thunder as forbidden by God just as 
the recording of the other visions was commanded, during the vision he must 
have felt a desire to record what he heard. This made the impression of the 
prohibition more profound. 

7. (P. 393.) The only text of v. 1 which can be regarded as genuine is 
yeypappevov éower Kal Oricbev karerppayiopévorv oppayiow émrd (A, numerous 
cursives, Cypr. Test. 1i. 11, 2.e. the earliest Latin Bible ; Orig. in Ps.i., Delarue, 
ii. 525; cf. Epiph. Her. Ixiv. 6; S*). Since there was at an early date an 
inclination to connect cal émiGev with what precedes instead of with what 
follows (S? [the earlier Syr. version edited by Gwynn, 1897] inserts kai, S? a 
relative before cxareappayiopévov), unavoidably an effort was made to get rid 
of the apparent disagreement between “within” and “behind”; sometimes 
eEwOevy was written for dmoOev (B [in this passage=Vatic. 2066, Szec. viii.] 
P, also Hippol. in Dan., ed. Bonwetsch, 276. 1; Orig. Philoc., ed. Robinson, 
p. 37. 10; Primas. Forsch. iv. 95; S?), and sometimes ¢umpoobev was used for 
éowbev (&, Orig. Philoc. p. 46.15). If, then, the inharmonious readings ¢owOev 
and émicev be correct, it follows that érwev has no correlate, either here or 
in iv. 8 (which correlate would necessarily be ¢oev) (Matt. xxiii, 25, 27, 28 ; 
Luke xi. 40; 1 Cor. v. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 16), and that cai dmicev is to be taken 
with careoppayiopévoy, as even Grotius perceived in spite of his inaccurate 
text. Consequently, the idea of a papyrus roll written on both sides, a so- 
called opistograph (against Birt, Das antike Buchwesen, S. 506), must be given 
up. Such a poor document as this would give an unfavourable impression of 

this book, which rested upon the hand of the Almighty, upon which also the 
salvation of the whole world depends. The emi rv deévdv shows that it was 
not a roll, in which case we would necessarily read ev rf dea (i. 16, ii. 1, 
x. 2.8; Ezek. ii. 9), if the idea be that God is holding a roll in His hand. A 
roll would fall from an open hand, such as John saw the f:Bdéor resting upon, 
unless an unusual effort to balance it be assumed. Moreover, if the document 
were a roll, the opening of the book, which necessarily precedes the seeing 
and reading of the text, would not be four times described by dvoiéa, to 
say nothing of the opening of the seal (ver. 2), but we should certainly 
have dveweiv (Ezek. ii. 10), dveXiooey (revolvere, the opposite of éAiccew, Rev. 
vi. 14), or dvarriooey, as in Luke iv. 17. That the B:8d/ov was not written 
on the outside is further evidenced by the fact that it was sealed seven times, 
the only purpose of which was to make it impossible to open the ®.@Alov and 
to see and read its written contents. Not until the last seal was broken was 
it possible to open the BSdAlov and to see and read what was written in 
it. This iBdiov is altogether different from the open (i8rapid.oy in x. 2. 9; 
Ezek. ii. 8-iii. 3. It is not a rolled sheet, or the larger book roll, but has the 
form of a codex, or codicil, ¢.e. of a modern book. Naturally, John did not 
see what was written in the book, since he saw only the closed Bi8riov ; but in 
his vision he received the impression that it was written within, just as in 


406 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


dreams we associate ideas with objects, although these ideas cannot be repre- 
sented to the senses (cf. Gen. xl. 16). It is hardly likely that he saw the 
seven seals; since these were on the back of the book, 7.e. certainly not on 
the upper side, the side turned toward the spectator, but on the side turned 
away from him, the side resting upon the hand of Him who sat on the throne. 
It is, of course, self-evident that the @i8Alov did not consist of empty pages, 
but that something was written in it. But to say this was not superfluous, 
since a letter, for example, which sometimes is called PiBdiov, has an address 
on the outside, a document has a mark of registration on the outside, and a 
literary work has a title pasted on the outside from which some idea of the 
contents can be derived. This @:Bdiov contains writing only on the inside, 
No one can know what it contains, until the seals are loosed. The only 
suggestion as to its contents is given by the seven seals. 

8. (P. 394.) E. HuscHKxe (Das Buch mit 7 Siegeln, 1860), following out 
the idea of his essay on the wax tablets found in the Seven Mountains in 
Austria (Zt. f. gesch. Rechtswiss. xii. 173 ff.), is the first writer to set forth the 
essentially correct view, except that he is influenced by many ancient exe- 
getical prejudices, and unnecessarily substitutes for the idea of the Testament 
—first transferring to other documents processes used in preparing a testament 
(Huschle, 8. 15)—the more general idea of legal documents. The so-called 
Preetorian Testament must have had on the outside, more particularly on 
the threads with which, according to ancient custom, documents, consisting 
of little wooden tablets covered with wax, or of leaves of parchment or of 
papyrus (Dig. xxxvii. 11. 1), were tied together, the seals of seven genuine 
witnesses, with their names inscribed beside the seals. Cf. Marquardt, Rom. 
Privatleben, 2 Aufl. p. 805f.; Bruns, Fontes jur. Rom., ed. 5, pp. 292-303, 
especially p. 302 ; Gaius, Inst. ii. 119, 147; Ulpian, Pragm. Vatic. 23. 6, 28. 6. 
In Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 361, col. 3, line 12, cai mepi ris Suabneys S€ dro- 
Kpivopa, Ore €v macas SiabjKas émra ciowy ohpayorai krA. Cf. in the same 
collection the will, Nos. 86 and 326; also the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. 
Grenfell and Hunt, i. 171, No. 105. 

9. (P. 398.) The present cadetra: in xi. 8 represents the point of view of 
the time when the book was written, as does also éoravp#én. Sodom and 
Gomorrah, however, are not merely types of a sinful city, but of a city 
condemned because of its sins (Isa. xiii. 19; Jer. i. 40; Matt. x. 15, xi. 23; 
2 Pet. ii. 6; Jude 7). Therefore Isaiah before the first destruction of 
Jerusalem and Paul before the second, declare that Israel would have been 
made like Sodom and Gomorrah, had not God left it a remnant (Isa. 
i. 9; Rom. ix. 29). Ezekiel, on the other hand, after the first destruction 
of Jerusalem, declares (xvi. 49-50) that Jerusalem has become a sister of 
Sodom; and this is the way in which John speaks here after the second 
destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70. 

10. (P. 401.) It seems as if xxi. 2 must be taken to mean that John 
beheld the descent of the Jerusalem, which until then had been in heaven, 
and that this descent was subsequent to the establishment of the new world. 
Against this interpretation is the analogy of xxi. 10, where the same thing 
seems to be stated more explicitly, and where John does not witness the 
descent of a city, but is shown a city built upon a mountain. Moreover, the 
new Jerusalem is the Bride of Jesus, whose marriage with Him takes place 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 407 


at the parousia—.e. at the beginning, not at the end of the millennium (xxi. 
2. 9, xix. 7). It is also to be noticed, that in xxi. 2 as distinguished from 
li. 12 (ris Kawns Iepovoadnp 1) KataBaivovoa) we read, “the Holy City, a new 
Jerusalem (the adjectives which follow are likewise without the article), 
coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her 
husband.” As seen by John it is primarily a part of the new world, to the 
establishment of which the vision extends. Here all national limitations 
are set aside, and even Christ Himself retires into the background (cf. 1 Cor. 
xv. 24-28). But this Jerusalem has already existed during the millennium 
on the earth, prior to the establishment of the new world, and so it is repre- 
sented in xxi. 9-xxii.15. In this passage the Lam) is everywhere prominent 
(xxi. 9, 14, 22, 23, 27, xxii. 1, 3), and at the end of the last vision Jesus 
Himself speaks, uttering both a promise and a threat (xxii. 12-15), just as 
God is represented as speaking in xxi. 6 ff. In the latter passage God and 
humanity are represented as united without any suggestion of differences 
among men (xxi. 3-7), whereas in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 Jerusalem retains its 
Israelitish character, as is evidenced by the prominence of the number 
twelve ; the heathen are visitors, but not citizens of the city (xxi. 24f.). In 
xxi. 6 ff. everything is accomplished and everything has become new, and 
sinners have been delivered over to the second death (xxi. 5-8, cf. xx. 10-15) ; 
but in xxi. 9-xxii. 15 without the holy walls are a mass of Gentiles for 
whom the unlocked city stands open, that they may bring their gifts, and 
receive blessings of healing (xxi. 24-26, xxii. 2). Only the unholiness and 
immorality which still exists among men is excluded from the city (xxi. 27, 
xxii. 15). 

11. (P. 401.) A review of the more recent hypotheses will be found in 
Hirscut, Die Ap. und thre neueste Kritik. 1895 (see also the supplements in 
the preface). For the more important attempts to distinguish different 
sources, strata, or literary hands in Rev., see VOLTER, Hntstehung der Ap. 
1882 ; much revised in the second edition 1885 (cf. Zahn, Apok. Stud. i. 525 ff., 
567). The main part of Rev. he represents as written originally by John 
(at first by the presbyter, afterwards by the apostle), in the year 65 or 66. 
It was afterwards enlarged by the same author, and was constantly revised 
by Christian hands up to 140 (originally 170). Vélter represents the matter 
in still a different manner in Das Problem der Ap. 1893. ViscuEr (Die Off. 
Jo. eine judische Ap. in christlicher Bearbeitung, 1886), starting from the 
observation that chaps. xi.-xii. present difficulties if taken as Christian 
prophecy which disappear if the chapters are Jewish, finds iv. 1-xxii. 5 
to be a Jewish Apocalypse written in Hebrew, to be dated before the year 70. 
This was later superficially worked over by some unknown Christian into 
what at first glance seems a Christian book by the addition of chaps. i.-iii., xxii. 
6-21, and numerous interpolations. Srirra (Of. des. Jo. 1889) distinguishes 
(1) a Christian Apocalypse which, omitting some interpolations by the 
redactor, is preserved in i, 4-vi. 17, viii. 1, vil. 9-18, xxii. 8-21 (printed on 
S. 549-560), and which belongs in the year 60 (S. 504, not the year 70, nor 
about the year 62, as Hirscht, 8. 5, 7, states) by John Mark, who is, however, 
not the author of the Gospel of Mark (S. 528); (2) a Jewish Apocalypse, 
belonging to the time of Pompey (Rev. x. 8-x1. 18, xiv. 14—xv. 8, xvi. 1-xvii. 6, 
xviii, 1-xix. 8a, xxi, 9-xxii. 3a, and ver. 15) ; (3) a second Jewish Apocalypse 


408 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


belonging to the time of Caligula (Rev. vii. 1-8, viii. 2-x. 7, xi. 15, 19, 
xii. 1-xiv. 11, xvi. 13-20, xix. 1l-xxi. 6). All this was edited either under 
Domitian or Trajan by a Christian, who thought that he was acting “in the 
spirit” of the Apostle John (who perhaps was still living), and “therefore 
was justified in seeking to give authority to the writing (the original Christian 
Apocalypse of John Mark?) in falling back upon the judgment of (the 
apostle ?) John” (S. 548, cf. GK, i. 952). Thus the authorship of Rev. was 
transferred from the real John of the year 60 to the apostle John of the 
year 95 or 100 (ef. vol. ii. 263). Erpes (Dre Offend. Jo. kritisch untersucht, 
1891) simplified Spitta’s hypothesis, and declared the whole work to be of 
Christian origin. GuNKEL (Schépfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzett, 
eine religionsgesch. Untersuchung ber Gen. 1 und Apok. 12, mat (babylonischen) 
Bettrigen von Zimmern, 1895). The chaos into which the cosmos of Rey. is 
changed in this work can hardly be described, at least it cannot be described 
briefly. Jou. Weiss. (Dre Offend. des Joh. 1904), in many points depending 
on Spitta, comes to the opinion that an original apocalypse, which was 
written by the John of Ephesus between 65-70, is preserved for us, with the 
exception of a few additions and changes from the later edition in chaps. i. 4— 
viii. 1, viii. 18-ix. 21, xii, 7-12, xiii. 11-18, xiv.-14-20, xx. 1-xxii. 21. The 
editor of the whole book, who worked into the original Johannine apocalypse 
an original Jewish apocalypse, written between May and August of the year 
70, published his compilation in 95, while the original apocalyptic writer, 
the John of Ephesus, was still alive. 


§ 73. THE CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN THE CHURCH 
ACCORDING TO REVELATION I-III. 


The opening words with which John begins his account 
(i. 9) remind the Asiatic Churches that they are all, like 
himself, suffering under the oppression of a hostility 
which their Christian belief has brought upon them. 
This fact constitutes a bond of union between the readers 
and himself—isolated, though he is, upon the little island 
of Patmos, for the sake of the word of God and the 
witness of Jesus—which strengthens the tie of Christian 
brotherhood. In this statement we are told what the first 
readers must have already known before, that John had 
been banished to the island because of his activity as a 
preacher, and on account of his Christian belief (n. 1). 
To this reference is to be added the tradition concerning 
the exile upon the island of Patmos, which has in its 
favour, at least, the fact that it cannot be proved to have 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 409 


arisen through an expansion of the passage before us. 
Banishment to an island can have occurred only as the 
result of a legal sentence, and, in the case of the province 
of Asia, of a sentence imposed by the proconsul of that 
district, who would not have been able, upon his own 
authority, to punish in this way a preacher of the gospel 
and an adherent of the Christian faith, if he had not felt 
himself authorised so to act by some decree issuing from 
the Imperial Government, or some regulation tolerated by 
it, by which the propagation of the Christian religion was 
to be checked by the courts or the police. When we 
attempt to shed more light upon this fact by the applica- 
tion of other data in the book, we must not, of course, 
employ indiscriminately everything which is said in 
regard to the persecution and slaughter of the faithful. 
We must disregard first of all the repeated reference to 
the great tribulation of the latter days, which is assumed 
to be well known (iii. 10, vi. 14, xii. 17—xiii. 17, xiv. 9-13, © 
xx. 4; cf. Matt. xxiv. 15-28); secondly, we must ignore 
the retrospective references to all the martyrs and martyr- 
doms for the sake of the Christian faith which have 
occurred in the past (vi. 9f.). At the same time, it must 
be noted that the standpoint from which the author 
makes these declarations is in most cases that of one who 
is speaking at the moment when judgment is being pro- 
nounced against the antichristian power of the world, 
and against its antichristian capital; so that even what, 
from that point of view, is past, must, when viewed by 
one living at the time when the book was written, lie 
partly, at least, in the future. In vi. 11, persons who, 
from the standpoint of those living at the time, are about 
to become martyrs, are included with the Christians who 
have already suffered. In xx. 4, again assuming the 
standpoint of the parousia, the martyrs of the anti- 
christian persecution are especially mentioned along with 
all those beheaded for the sake of the Christian faith. 


410 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Similarly, in xviii. 24 are included with the prophets and 
saints whose blood was shed in Babylon, all those who 
at any time or place have been slain for the same cause 
(cf. xvi. 6; Matt. xxiii. 35). But since in pre-Christian 
times it was not Babylon on the Euphrates, but Jerusalem, 
which was the murderess of the prophets (Matt. xxiii. 37 ; 
Luke xiii. 34; 1 Thess. ii. 15; Acts vii. 52), and since 
apostles are also named among the martyrs whose blood 
is avenged by the judgment against the capital city, 
XVill. 20, it becomes clear that here, as in xvii. 6, where 
Babylon is described as drunken with the blood of the 
witnesses of Jesus, and in xvill. 24, xix. 2, where more 
general terms are employed, the author refers to the 
Roman martyrs of the time of Nero, and especially to 
Peter and Paul (vol. it, 165, n. 4). The reference in 
chaps. ii.—iii. are temporally and locally less remote. The 
angel of Smyrna is already experiencing tribulation arising 
from the slanders of the Jews in that place. More 
suffering is predicted for him in the future. Punishment 
by imprisonment is to overtake some of the members of 
the Church. But the angel himself is required to remain 
faithful till death (ii. 9f, see below). In Philadelphia 
also it is the synagogue of Satan, made up of Jews 
unworthy of the name, which is hostile to the angel of 
the Church. If we may draw conclusions concerning the 
present and future attitude of the Jews from the state- 
ment that the angel has kept the word of Jesus loyally, 
and has not denied His name (ii. 8-10), it is evident that 
Jewish hostility has brought persecution upon him. But 
the situation was different in Pergamum (ii. 12-17, n. 2). 
The angel in that place is subject to a special temptation 
to deny Jesus and belief in Him, because he lives where 
Satan’s throne is, and he has up to this time successfully 
resisted. He has demonstrated his loyalty apparently 
not long before, since a certain Antipas was killed in 
Pergamum as a faithful witness of Christ, an occurrence — 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN “Ait 


which is explained by the fact that Satan dwells there. 
This change of expression alone betrays the fact that it 
is not something external, like a prominent building or 
work of art, which is meant, but an institution or custom 
there prevalent in which the Christians recognised a 
striking embodiment and activity of the dominion of 
Satan. ‘This is the cause of the martyrdom of Antipas, 
and of the continued danger in which the confessors of 
Christ are placed. It cannot well be doubted that the 
author means the cult of Aisculapius, the God of healing, 
in Pergamum, which flourished there as nowhere else. 
The serpent, which was to the Christians a symbol of 
Satan (Rev. xii. 9, xx. 2; 2 Cor. xi. 3), was also the 
chief emblem of Adsculapius. His most common epithet 
was ca7yp; he was not infrequently called 6 cwryp with- 
out qualification, and was looked upon as cwrip tév drop, 
He became in Pergamum, especially, Zevs ’Ackdjmv0s, and 
the most exalted king. He absorbed all other deities, 
and even became identified with the Emperor. It was 
inevitable—and the fact is well attested—that he should 
appear to the Christians to be, more than any of the 
other heathen sons of God, a devilish caricature of the true 
cwoTip Tod Koopov (n. 2). How easily it might have hap- 
pened that in daily life, or at the celebration of the feast 
of Aisculapius, Christians in Pergamum came into conflict 
with the heathen population, and that a Christian who 
openly expressed his abhorrence of this cult might have 
been killed by fanatical worshippers of the divinity! It 
is very improbable that Antipas was executed upon 
sentence of a court (n. 3). It is evident, then, that at 
the time Revelation was written the Jewish congregations 
at Smyrna and Philadelphia knew very well how to fan 
into a flame the slumbering hostility of the populace ; 
and that things had reached such a state in Pergamum, 
especially in connection with the worship of Ausculapius, 
that the devotees of the old cults had employed violence 


412 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


against the Christians, and were likely to do so again at 
any time. Such acts of hostility had been encountered 
by the Christians in Asia and Europe from the very 
beginning. On the other hand, compared with conditions 
in the time of Paul and of 1 Peter, it was an innovation 
for the Roman government to take measures which—as 
in the case of the banishment to a small island of a 
prominent Christian teacher from the field of his activity 
—could aim only at preventing the spread of Christianity. 
Equally new was the state of affairs in which the Asiatic 
Churches had come to suffer a general persecution of such 
a character that they were compelled to confess or to 
deny the name of Christ—a situation which forces us to 
assume that legal measures were employed. It cannot be 
shown that the Christians ever faced such conditions at 
any time previous to the later years of the reign of 
Domitian (n. 4). The tradition, in itself unassailable, 
that Revelation was written about 95 a.pD., is thus corro- 
borated (above, pp. 183, 201). 

A consideration of the internal affairs of the Church 
leads to the same result. We are to draw no conclusions 
from the fact that, among the seven Churches enumerated, 
some are missing which were in existence even when Paul 
was living (n. 5, and above, p. 391f). We know, for 
example, that the Church of Hierapolis continued to 
flourish. This city was the residence of the evangelist 
Philip and his daughters, and the episcopal residence of 
Papias (Hus. H. #. ii. 31. 3f, 39. 9). It may be a mere 
coincidence that Pergamum, Smyrna, Sardis, Philadelphia, 
and Thyatira are not mentioned in even such early 
writings as Acts and the Pauline Epistles. But as regards 
Smyrna, we know from the trustworthy testimony of 
Polycarp, the local bishop, that during the lifetime of 
Paul no Church as yet existed in that place. From the 
life of Polycarp we may conclude that it was not until 
ewea 67-70 a.D. that a Church arose in that place, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 413 


through the efforts of the apostle John and others of the 
apostolic circle (n. 5). As there is no hint in Rey. ii. 8-11 
that the Church of Smyrna—the second to be addressed— 
was founded in the immediate past, Revelation must have 
been written considerably later than 70 a.p. 

The apostle John, obedient to the command which had 
come to him, sent the Book of Revelation to the seven 
Churches, from Ephesus to Laodicea, in the form of a single 
letter, of which seven copies were probably made, if he had 
scribes at his disposal (i. 4, 11). In the framework of the 
first vision he receives the commission to set down in the 
very beginning of this book, which he is commanded to 
write and despatch, what Christ has to say to the seven 
different Churches, or rather to their “angels” (above, p. 
404,n. 6). That he may gain an immediate and correct 
understanding of this commission, which is to be seven 
times repeated, but which is not yet alluded to in i. 11, 
two elements of the vision before him are interpreted 
immediately preceding the first utterance of this command 
(i. 20, n. 6). The seven stars which Jesus holds in His 
hand, united as if by an invisible hoop in the form of a 
wreath or diadem, are angels (but not the angels) of the 
Churches previously mentioned; the seven candles, in the 
midst of which the author sees Jesus stand and move, are 
the Churches themselves. The omission of the article 
before ayyedos shows that the latter is no technical designa- 
tion derived from the real conditions surrounding the 
author, or from the group of ideas familiar to him, or from 
the revelation which has just begun, but that it is a 
qualifying characteristic, and therefore in some way a 
figurative designation of the persons meant. The theory 
first found in the writings of Origen, that real angels are 
here meant, to each of which was given the guardianship 
of a separate Church, must be rejected; for the idea is 
absurd that the Lord should make known His will to the 
spirits which like Himself belong to the invisible heavenly 


414. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


world, through the agency of John, a being of this earth, 
and that they should learn of this will only as unseen 
visitors at the meetings of the Churches when John’s book 
is read (i. 8). Moreover, the praise and blame which 
Christ bestows upon them is incompatible with the idea 
that they are real angels, sent by God, 1.e. good angels. 
The interpretation which makes the angel the personified 
spirit or heavenly idealisation of the individual local 
Church is equally bad. This is a modern conception, in 
itself obscure, which seeks in vain for support in Dan. x. 
13-21, xii. 1, or from other biblical views concerning 
angels (Matt. xviii. 10; Acts xii. 15; Rev. xiv. 18, xvi. 5), 
and which has arisen from a mixture of ancient heathen 
ideas with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. On 
this point Goethe’s Faust has said all that it necessary. 
According to the early Christian view, the Christian 
Churches have no other spirit than the one Spirit of God 
and of Christ, common to them all, which cannot be 
punished or called to repentance for the sins and weak- 
nesses of the members of the congregation. All other 
dominant ideas and common tendencies which arose in a 
Church were conceived to be the effect of forces at work in 
the non-Christian world and in the unregenerate nature of 
the members; and were not ascribed to a mythological 
subject, called the “Spirit of the Church of Ephesus,” or 
the “Spirit of the Phrygian Church.” Only human beings 
can be meant, and only such as are in a high degree 
responsible for the condition of the Churches in which they 
occupy a position called figuratively dyyedos. But one 
must also reject the conjecture that these “angels” are 
emissaries of the seven Churches who have come to John 
at Patmos, and who are now to return to their homes with 
his written account of the visions which have heen granted 
him. The theory is untenable: (1) because the author 
could not have applied to these persons such an indefinite 
term as dyyedo (i. 20 without the article), but must have 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 41s 


spoken of them as the representatives of the seven 
Churches, known to him, present with him, and perhaps 
awaiting orders from him, and so would have used o 
dyyerot, or better of amootonos Tay é. éxxr. (2 Cor. viii. 28; 
Phil. ii. 25); and the author could hardly have omitted 
calling the attention of the readers in i. 9-11 to these 
conditions. (2) It would be a very strange proceeding in 
the addresses to each of the seven Churches, to direct these 
not to the congregations in question, but to the messengers 
present with the author, who were to deliver these com- 
munications. If there were seven letters, each of which 
was to be brought to the Church for which it was intended 
by an dyyedos as a letter-carrier, it is at least conceivable 
that these messengers would have been indicated in the 
outside addresses of the sealed letters, to avoid confusion. 
But such is not the case. What the author sends—no 
matter by whom—to Ephesus, Smyrna, and the other 
cities, is the whole book, and in this book the dyyedor are 
addressed by Christ. (3) What is said to the dyyerou 
would be appropriate only if they were men definitely 
responsible for the condition of the Churches to which they 
belong, 2.e., leaders of these Churches; it is immaterial 
whether they are with the apostle at the time, as envoys, 
or remain at home. But since it is usual to deal with 
persons present, not in writing but orally, it follows from 
ypaov (used seven times from i. 1 onwards) that the 
dyyedou are not on the island of Patmos, but in Ephesus, 
Smyrna, and the other cities. The point of departure in 
determining their station is not from the strange epithet 
dyyerot, but from the way in which the author makes 
Christ address them. That “thou” everywhere in the 
address indicates the dyyeros is self-evident; and there is 
not a single phrase to lead to the assumption that this is 
a collective personality present only to the mind. When 
“thou” is occasionally replaced by “ you,” which probably 
applies to a number of Christians of the locality in question 


416 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(ii. 10, 180, 24), it follows that the “angel” is a member 
of the Church ; but this does not exclude his being at the 
head of the congregation (n. 6, end). When the candle- 
stick (2.e., according to the authentic interpretation of 1. 
20, the Church of Ephesus) is called the candlestick of the 
angel of Ephesus (ii. 5), it is clear that the “angel” is 
neither some member of the congregation nor the con- 
gregation itself. It is the bishop to whom Christ says 
“thy candlestick,” 2.¢., thy congregation. In accord with 
this is the fact that other “angels” are told that they 
“have” people in their congregations worthy or unworthy 
in their character (11. 14 f., i111. 4). There are such persons 
in his congregation; and it is the bishop’s duty to test 
and to ward off suspicious elements which force their way 
into his Church (ii. 2, 6, 14f.). He is to strengthen the 
wavering members (iii. 2). He is severely censured when 
he allows impure elements to flourish and to exercise a 
seductive influence, as in the case of the angel of Thyatira 
(ii. 20), According to the reading, which is undoubtedly 
correct, it is the wife of the bishop, who, like a second 
Jezebel, along with her irresolute husband is introducing 
ruinous practices (n. 7). 

None of the names of the a@yyedou is given. But, since 
Bengel’s discovery, one should not again lose sight of the 
fact that in ui. 1 there is a play upon the name of the 
bishop of Sardes, Zotikos (n. 8). If Revelation was 
written circa 95, we know from other accounts the name 
of the ayyedos of Smyrna. Even at that early date Poly- 
carp stood at the head of the Church in that place. A 
short period of persecution is predicted for the Church, 
which will culminate apparently in nothing more serious 
than the detention of some of the members; but of the 
bishop is required faithfulness unto death. He is to die 
asa martyr. The allusion of Christ to Himself as the One 
‘which was dead and lived again” (ii. 8), and the closing 
words of ii, 11 bear this out. The fact that this prophecy 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 417 


to the congregation and its bishop was fulfilled in the year 
155 a.p. (n. 9) would lead one to regard it as a vatecontwm 
ex eventu, if it were not an assured fact that Revelation 
had been written long before, and was at that time current 
in the Church. 

The monarchical episcopate, of which in the period of 
the Pastoral Epistles there was no trace in this province 
of Asia (above, p. 195 ff.), had, when Revelation and 3 John 
were written, a firm foothold in that region (above, 
p. 876 f.); and the Epistles of Ignatius show the same 
condition at about 110 a.p. Tor this reason Revelation 
cannot have been written until a considerable period had 
elapsed after the death of Paul—not before the year 80, 
and very probably curca 95 a.p. The name émicxoros 
seems not yet to have become the regular title of the 
individual bishops, as is the case in Ignatius; for then 
one would expect in 1. 20 of éioxomos instead of the 
anarthrous a@yyedo. The apostle who felt himself upon the 
Lord’s day (n. 10) transported involuntarily to the con- 
eregations assembled for divine service, must have under- 
stood the term bishop, probably borrowed from Jewish 
conditions, to mean the one who, appearing before God in 
the name of the congregation, leads in prayer and directs 
the service (n. 6, end). In the same way that he presents 
before God and Christ the petitions of the congregation, 
Christ speaks to him in order that the eongregation of 
which he is in charge may through him hear the word of 
their Lord. It is comprehensible how one can admit 
that the “angels” refer to the bishops, and still hold that 
Rey. ii.—iii. was written circa 65-70 (e.g. J. Weiss, S. 49). 

In Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira a pernicious 
theory (Séay7, ii, 14f, 24) and praxis (va, ii. 6, 22) has 
sought to gain entrance; in Ephesus without result, in 
Pergamum with some, and in Thyatira with great success. 
Its advocates are in ii. 6, 15 called Nicolaitans. This 
name is not to be read into the conditions described in ii. 

VOL, Ill, : 27 


418 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


18-29, since it is clear that in Thyatira a single individual, 
the wife of the bishop himself, is at the head of the move- 
ment, and apparently supports it in a peculiar way. She 
represents herself to be a prophetess (ii. 20), and it is only 
here that we meet with any indication of a speculative 
basis for the movement (ii. 24). But the teaching is the 
same as that of the Nicolaitans (ii. 14, 20). Fornication 
and participation in heathen sacrificial meals are not 
merely regarded with indifference, but are frankly re- 
commended, and have been instituted, at least by the 
prophetess of Thyatira, for the reason that one must 
acquaint himself with the deep things of Satan,—not, 
of course, to be engulfed therein, but that he may realise 
the powerlessness of the world of evil spirits, and attain 
freedom from evil (n. 11). Even though in Rey. i. 14 
this teaching is not said to be that of Balaam, we must 
recognise its essential agreement with the doctrinal 
tendency combated in 2 Peter and Jude (vol. u. 223 ff, 
232 ff., 276-281, 292f.). The only difference is that in 
the latter case we read of a libertine doctrine which arose 
in a region of Gentile-Christians and which made its way 
among the Jewish-Christians ; whereas Revelation concerns 
itself wholly with the Gentile-Christian Churches of Asia, 
where the errorists did not need to practise the reserve 
necessary among the Jewish-Christians (vol. ii, 281 f.). 
They found in their heathen surroundings the strongest 
support for their efforts. But it appears that this tendency 
had only recently become a threatening danger for the 
Asiatic Church. In the Epistles of John we hear nothing 
of it; and if this seems of little importance in view of the 
brevity of 2 and 3 John, the silence of 1 John is all the 
more significant. From 1 John v. 21 the only fact 
that can be gleaned is that the heathen cults subjected — 
these Churches to temptations, as was the case with the 
Corinthian Church at the time of 1 Cor. viiii—xvi. ; 2 Cor. ~ 
vi. 14-vii. 1, and with the Churches in Asia Minor when 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 419 


1 Pet. iv. 1-4 was written. The doctrine of the 
Nicolaitans must, therefore, have found favour in the 
province only at some time subsequent to that represented 
by 1 John. A comparison of Rev. i. 2 and ii. 6 leaves 
no doubt that emissaries of this party had come to Ephesus 
some time before, and, after being turned away by the 
bishop of that place, had moved on to Pergamum and 
Thyatira, where they met with better success (n. 12). 
The fact that they represented themselves to be apostles, 
‘and were declared to be false apostles, makes them 
itinerant teachers who roamed about, like the followers 
of Peter in Corinth, but does not necessitate the assump- 
tion that, like these, they originated in Palestine and 
taught a doctrine more or less Judaistic (vol. 1. 289 ff.). 
The name “ Nicolaitans” gives rise to more definite 
conjectures. The theory, not yet abandoned, that the 
name is a translation of ‘‘ Balaamites” deserves at last 
to be buried (n. 13). But the tradition that Nicolaiis, 
the proselyte of Antioch (Acts vi. 5), later went astray 
as a libertine, deserves to be believed, if for no other 
reason, because it contradicts the nature of ecclesiastical 
legend-making, when it imputes evil to a Christian who 
is mentioned with honour in the N.T. Even as late as 
the time of Clement of Alexandria (Strom. ii. 118) there 
were persons, or writings of persons, who cited this 
Nicolaiis as authority for their libertine doctrine. The 
Book of Revelation cannot have led them to use the name 
in that way. It is clear, therefore, that it did not create 
this party and the name it bears, but that both existed 
independently of the book. In that case it is impossible 
to see whence the party could have got its name, if not 
from some man by the name of Nicolaiis; and since the 
party itself, as well as the teachers of the Church who 
oppose them, make the Nicolatis of Acts vi. 5 the originator 
of the doctrine, it would be useless to seek for another 
person of that name. If, then, this Nicolaiis himself, like 


420 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Philip his former companion in office, emigrated to the 
province of Asia, or if adherents of his came to that place 
—which is more likely—it is quite conceivable that the 
representatives of this doctrine, because of its outward 
connection with the primitive Church, introduced them- 
selves as apostles of a true gospel. This last discussion 
also confirms the tradition that Revelation was written 
circa 95. At all events, the words of Christ to the seven 
Churches were written at a time later than 1 John. 


1. (P. 408.) The fact that Oris stands first shows that this is not 
something which always accompanies the quest for the kingdom (Acts xiv. 
22), but that it was present in the writer’s mind at the time. The ey 
"Inood, which is connected with it and which corresponds to the Pauline 
év Xptoré, shows that it was persecution for the sake of Christianity. The 
éyevouev ev th vnow (cf. Acts xiii. 5; 2 Tim. i. 17), which refers primarily 
to the arrival at Patmos (Athanas. in Montfaugon, Coll. nova, ii. 5=mape- 
yevounv), and which in this sense is connected with dia rdv Adyov, affords even 
less basis than would jun» for the assumption that, at the time when he wrote, 
John was no longer on Patmos. By a mistaken reference to i. 2, Liicke, 
Bleek, and others are led to take dia roy Adyov xrX. as meaning that John 
went to Patmos for the purpose of receiving the revelation. But (1) there 
is nothing which suggests this meaning in i. 9, while ini. 2 it is demanded 
by €uaprvpnoev and by the context. (2) A Christian can do nothing what- 
ever to induce revelation except to pray for it under certain conditions 
which give him aright todo so. Eestasy certainly would not be induced 
by a twelve or twenty hours’ trip by sail- or row-boat. Equally impossible 
is the interpretation, “in order to preach the gospel on Patmos.” While the 
gospel preached by man can be called “testimony of Jesus” or “ testimony 
of God” or “word of God” (vol. ii. 378 f. n. 2), it is contrary to all known 
usage by dud with the acc. to represent its proclamation as the purpose of 
an action (cf., per contra, such passages as 2 Cor. il. 12; Phil. i. 5, ii. 22). 
Moreover, a missionary journey from the thickly populated mainland to the 
unimportant island on which there was no city (see n. 4, end) would be a 
strange proceeding. The interpretation given above is the only one in keep- 
ing with the usage of Rev. (vi. 9, xx. 4; cf. xii. 17, xix. 10) and of the N.T. 
(Matt. xiii. 21; Mark iv.17; 1 Pet.iii.14; Col.iv.3; 2 Tim. i. 12) and with 
the context (“partaker with you in tribulation”). For the tradition con- 
cerning the exile, see above, pp. 197, 201, nn. 8,14. According to a doubt- 
ful Latin fragment (Patr. wp. ii. 171), Polycarp mentioned the exilia of 
John. 

2. (Pp. 410, 411.) Pergamum (rd Tépyapov since Polyb. iv. 48. 11) or 
Pergamus (7 Ilépyapos, the earlier form, occurs Xenoph. Hell. iii. 1. 6, but is 
found later in connection with the later form, Ptolem. v. 2. 14), longe clar- 
issimum Asie Pergamum (Plin. v. 126), had in the time of Galen (Opp. v. 49) 
120,000 inhabitants, and was at that time the principal city of one of the 13 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 421 


or 14 judicial districts (conventus juridici), but was in no sense the capital 
of the province of Asia, a distinction claimed by Ephesus (Cicero, ad Famil. 
v. 20.9; Jos. Ant. xiv. 10. 11; Digest. i. 16. 4). Consequently it is wrong 
to explain Rev. ii. 13 on the assumption that Pergamum was the centre of 
the Roman government. Moreover, to treat the latter as an incarnation of 
the rule of Satan is contrary to the views of Rev. as well as to those of Paul. 
Nor is the reference to the temple of Augustus built in 29 B.c. upon the 
highest point of the acropolis; since there is no apparent reason why this 
seat of the worship of an emperor should have aroused the aversion of the 
Christians more than did numerous other such places in the province. The 
passage has also been connected with the huge altar, rediscovered in 1878, 
famous on account of the relief work upon it. Cf. in general, Beschreibung 
der Skulpturen von Pergamon, i. Gigantomachie (edited by Puchstein), 2te Aufl. 
1902. This structure, evidently built under Eumenes 11. about 180 B.c., and 
dedicated to Zeus and Athena Nicephoros (cf. Frankel on No. 69 of the In- 
schriften von Pergamon), was much less a place of worship than an artistically 
adorned monument allegorically commemorative of the victory of Attalus 1. 
over the Gallic hordes about 240 B.c.; ef. Tondeur, Die Gigantomachie des 
pergam. Altars, erliutert von Trendelenburg, 1884; Ranke, Weltgesch.} ii. 1. 286. 
This work could be regarded by Christians as the throne of Satan even less 
than could a temple ; certainly there was nothing about it to make Pergamum 
dangerous for Christians. This would, however, be in a high degree true of 
the worship of Asculapius. For information on this subject, cf. the article 
* Asklepios” by Thramer in Roscher’s Lea. der Myth. i. 615-641, and Pauly- 
Wissowa, ii. 1642-1697. For the Christian estimate, cf. Just. Apol. i. 21 (of 
the sons of Zeus comparable to Jesus besides the Hermes= Logos, is also a 
second Asculapius, the god of healing, who ascended into heaven); i. 22 
(where Asculapius’ and Jesus’ healings and restorations of the dead to life 
are compared) ; i. 54 end (the fabricated fable of the demons converted in 
accordance with the prophecy of Christ); the contrast between A%sculapins 
and Christ in Origen (contra Cels. iii. 3; Arnob. 1, 49, ili. 23, vii, 44-48). 
Under Diocletian, Christian stone-cutters from Rome without scruple carved 
in the quarries of Pannonia not only pillars, capitals, and baths, but’ also 
victories and cupids, and even the sun-god in his chariot ; but they steadfastly 
refused to make an image of Aisculapius. For this they were put to death 
as followers of Antipas of Pergamum ; cf. Passio quat. coron. in Biidinger’s 
Unters. zur Kaisergesch. iii. 324 ff., 331 ff. 

3. (P. 411.) The legend of Antipas (Acta SS. April. ii. 3, 965), which in 
some form had been read by Andreas of Ceesarea (ed. Sylburg, p. 11), has no 
historical value. To this extent Gorres (Zf/WTh, 1878, 8. 277 ff.) is right. That 
independent of Rev. Antipas was no distinguished martyr is evidenced also 
by the confusion in the tradition and interpretation of the text among the 
ancients. Probably the correct reading is ev rats nuépas ’Avtima, 6 pdprus (cf. 
i. 5). The nominative in apposition easily gave rise to the reading ’Avtimas, 
which was early interpreted as dvreimras (“thou contradictedst”) and also 
changed into éri was; see especially Gwynn, The Apoc. of St. John in a Syr. 
version, 1897, Notes on the Syr. text, p. 44f. That Antipas was put to death 
in consequence of a judicial sentence is unlikely, because the throne of Satan 
is not to be connected with the Roman authority, and especially because the 


422 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


mention of only a single bloody martyrdom in the recent past, from among 
the seven Churches, is incomprehensible, if in Asia at that time, as in 
Bithynia in 112 under Trajan and Pliny, confession of Christianity when 
proved before a court was regularly punished by death. John, who was 
certainly more prominent and not less courageous than the others, was 
punished simply by banishment. 

4, (P. 412.) Concerning the difference between the status of the Christians 
in the time of Nero and in the time of Domitian, see vol. ii. 177-185, 189-191 ; 
cf. Zahn, Hirt. des Hermas, 8. 44 ff., 118-135. The present writer regards it 
as certain that not before Domitian, but in the time of this emperor and 
under his personal leadership, the government of the empire and the pro- 
vincial magistrates under it took a position antagonistic to Christianity, and 
adopted a regular procedure with reference to it. There is also a tradi- 
tion to the effect that Domitian sent Christians into exile because of their 
confession ; thus, for example, Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of 
Pontia (Kus. H. #. iii. 18.5; Chron. an. Abr. 2109, and after an. 2110; Dio. 
Cass. Ixvii. 14). Reference is made to the banishment of Christians in 
Herm. Sim. i. (ef. Zahn, Hirt. des Hermas, S. 124). Sparsely settled islands 
were generally used as places of exile, such as Gyara or Gyaros (Tac. Ann. 
ili. 68 f., iv. 30; cf. xv. 71; Juven. i. 73, x. 170; Epict. i. 25. 19, iii. 24. 100, 
109, 113; Philostr. Veta Afoll. vii. 16), an island among the Cyclades, of 
which Plin. H. N. iv. 69 says, as he does also of Melos and Calymna in iv. 71, 
that it had at least one city, a statement which in iv. 69 he is unable to make 
with reference to Patmos. 

5. (Pp. 412, 413.) Polyce. ad Phil. xi. 3, speaking in his own name and in 
that of the presbyters of Smyrna, says concerning the Macedonian Churches 
with which Paul corresponded : “de vobis etenim gloriatur (Paulus) in omnibus 
ecclesiis, que deum sole tunc cognoverant ; nos autem nondum noveramus.” 
For further particulars, see Forsch. iv. 252-259. Of the Churches of the 
province, mentioned by Paul or in the Acts but not in Rev. (Colosse, Hiera- 
polis, Troas), Ignatius in 110 mentions only Troas (Smyrn. xii. 1; Phelad. 
xi. 2); of those first mentioned in Rev., he mentions Smyrna and Phila- 
delphia, besides these, but first he mentions Magnesia and Tralles. The 
order in Rev. i. 1], ii. 1 ff. is geographical. The Church which can first be 
reached from Patmos is Ephesus. Then going north follow Smyrna and 
Pergamum, and following in a south-east direction lay Thyatira, Sardis, 
Philadelphia, Laodicea. Leucius in his ‘ Wanderings of John” makes this 
order of the cities of Asia the basis of his entire treatment (Forsch. vi. 
194-199). 

6. (Pp. 413, 416.) After the comprehensive statement, given in i. 11, 19, 
of what John is to write (above, p. 404), rd puornpioy xrX., i. 20, naturally 
cannot be the object of ypawov in i. 19, a construction of the passage possible 
only on the absurb supposition that during the vision John produced pen 
and paper and begged the Lord, who stood before him, to cease speaking 
for a few minutes. The words are accusative absolutes and introductory 
appositives ; ef. Luke xxi. 6; Rom. xii.1. A somewhat freer use of the cases 
in apposition is characteristic of Rev. (i. 5, ii. 26, xxi. 17), “As regards the 
mystery of the seven stars, etc. the seven stars are the angels of the seven 
Churches.” The fact that in this passage the article is missing before @yyeAox 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 423 


is not to be overlooked any more than is the very peculiar use of language in 
the headings in ii. 1, 8ff. Without entering with detail into the very com- 
plicated critical question as to the text, where special consideration must be 
given to S? and the old Latin version, the present writer believes it possible 
to affirm that the smooth reading, r6 dyy. ris ev "Edéow éxkAnoias, is 
spurious. If the reading suggested by Hort, 76 dyy. 76 ev "Ed. éxxAnoias, 
be correct, éxxAnoias, which is probably to be struck out altogether in ii. 18 
as a modifier of dyy., is hardly a Greek construction, “To the church-angel 
in Ephesus.” Origen discovers’ here actual angels, who along with the 
human bishops are charged with the oversight of the local Churches (Hom. 
Xli. xlli. an Le. ; de Orat. xi.; Theoph. (Latin) ii. 6; see Forsch. ii. 67.19; 
ef. Jerome on Matt. xviii. 10 (Vall. vii. 139 f.) ; Andreas, p. 8 on i. 20 (who 
also quotes Gregory Naz. as holding this view) ; moreover, p. 40n i. 4 and p. 19 
on iv. 5, Andreas attempts to identify the seven angels with the seven spirits, 
and makes an obscure statement about a similar view of Irensus, which 
probably relates to Rev. i. 4, iv. 5=viii. 2); among modern writers the same 
view is held, e.g., by Bleek (Vorl. diber die Ap.S. 167). Ambrosiaster (Quest. 
102, ed. Bass. xvi. 466) and Epiph. (Her. xxv. 3) identify the angels with the 
local bishops ; the latter, however, seems also to believe in mystical union 
between the bishop and an angel of the altar. Ebrard, Olshausen’s Komm. 
vii. (1853) S. 144, and recently Spitta, S. 38, identify the angels with the 
messengers of the Churches who came to John. While the Jewish analogies 
adduced by Vitringa, de Synag. vet., ed. ii. (1726) pp. 889-914 ; Comm. in ap., 
ed. ii. p. 25; Lightfoot, Hore hebr. on Matt. iv. 23 (Opp. ii. 278) ; Schoettgen, 
p. 1089, on Rey. ii. 1, clearly need sifting and supplementing, they contain 
the gist of the correct view. The expression zy ’9¥, which corresponds 
exactly in form (cf. the remarks above on the text of 11. 1), did not in itself 
and originally mean a fixed office, still less a humble office in the synagogue, 
but it meant the person in the congregation who was invested with full 
power, who acted in its name in all relations, especially in matters con- 
cerning the liturgy, the leading of prayers, etc. The idea is not that of 
the priest, who acts in the assembly in the name of God, or that of the 
prophet and apostle, who are sent by God or Christ, but that of an author- 
ised agent of the Church, its representative before God and in acts of de- 
votion. It is a noteworthy fact that the early Syrians, who were not 
familiar with Rev. or who at least did not have it in their canon, under- 
stood by éyyeAou in 1 Cor. vi. 3 and in other places the priests (Aphraat, p. 
432 ; Ephr. Carm. Nisib. 42.10 ; Comm. in ep. Pault, p.175), on the analogy of 
Mal.ii. 7; cf. Hag. 1.13. The best example of a transition from address to © 
the bishop to address to the Church is Ign. ad Polyc. 1-111, vi. 1-vii. 1, vii. 
2, 3, viii. 1, 3; remote parallels are found in the concluding greetings in 
Rimes ote OV lim. av. Lb so Dit. a. 1: 

7. (P. 416.) In Rev. ii. 20 the external authority for yuvaixa followed 
by ood (AB, many cursives, old Lat. version [Cypr. Primas.], S? S*) is at 
least as great as that for yuvaica alone (NCP Copt. vg; Epiph. Her. li. 33), 
The later insertion of cod cannot be satisfactorily explained as a mechanical 
repetition of ood used three or four times earlier. On the contrary, since 
dyyehor was early understood to mean angels (see n. 6), cod must have 
seemed out of place. However, when the earliest witnesses for yyvaixa 


424 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


without cov were written, married bishops were objectionable exceptions, as 
the history of Synesius shows ; especially a bishop who had such a godless 
wife in his house. Furthermore, the expression rijv yuvaixa "lef. is a gross 
violation of style, which in the nature of the case cannot be justified by 
examples like 6 BaowWeds ‘Hpodns (Mark vi. 14, “the king, namely, Herod ”), 
Therefore, accepting ov as correct, the reference can only be to the wife of 
the bishop. The daughter of a Pheenician king, who as the wife of the weak 
king Ahab used her position to introduce into Israel the worship of Baal 
and the unchastity associated with it (1 Kings xvi. 31, xviii. 4, 13, xix. 1, 
xxi. 25), and who herself is charged with adultery (2 Kings ix. 22, cf. ix. 30), 
was a fitting type by which to describe a bishop’s wife who countenanced the 
teaching of the Nicolaitans, recommended without scruple unchastity and 
participation in the heathen sacrificial feasts, and who herself indulged in 
vice. If, as is clearly the case, ropvedoa in ii, 20 is to be taken literally 
(cf. ii. 14; Acts xv. 20,29; 1 Cor. x. 7,8; 2 Pet. ii. 13-20 ; Jude 4, 11 f., vol. 
li, 224 f., 245 f.), wopveia in ii.21 must be taken in the same way, and the fact 
that the sin of those who have had intercourse with her is called poryedew 
per avris, only goes to confirm the fact that she was married ; all unchastity 
on the part of a married woman is adultery (cf. Matt. v. 32). But it is 
not likely that her children were the fruits of such adulterous relations (réxva 
mopveias, Hos. ii. 6; John viii. 41). That would necessarily be expressed. 
They are the legitimate children of the wife and also of the bishop. They 
are to be swept away by a pestilence (cf. Rev. vi. 8=723, Ex. v. 3, ix. 3, 15). 
If there is any point at which a depraved woman can be deeply touched it is 
with reference to her own children. The comparison with Jezebel is imper- 
fect in so far as the weak Ahab actually committed wrong, although not 
without misgivings (1 Kings xxi. 27-29). The bishop of Thyatira, on the 
other hand, is praised because of his constantly increasing good conduct 
(ii. 19); but it isa blameworthy weakness on his part that he permits his 
wife to do as she likes. As a husband and a bishop he ought not to have 
allowed his wife entire freedom in her movements, which made it possible 
for her to exercise her seductive influence on many members of the Church. 
From the manner in which Christ describes Himself in ii. 23, it is evident 
that Jezebel knew how to conceal her a from the knowledge and criti- 
cism of others; hence also from her husband. She passed not as aépyn, but 
as mpophris, and we do not know how far she and her followers went. In 
every century the history of the Church shows all degrees of confusion 
between immoral conduct and exalted religiousness. He who tries the 
hearts and reins ealls the more refined use of feminine charms in order to 
allure admirers mopyveia, and in no allegorical sense, and in the case of a 
married woman he calls it pouyeia; cf. Matt. v. 28. The idea, put forth by 
Andreas, p. 12, that Jezebel is a personification of the Nicolaitan party is to 
be rejected ; (1) if the reading of ii. 20 advocated above be correct, then we 
are confronted by the incredible supposition that this godless party could be 
represented as the wife of the pious bishop ; (2) Jezebel, who teaches others 
and who commits adultery with her admirers, and who has children, cannot 
be identical with the party, the members of which are distincuished from her 
as her adulterous companions and her children. Even weaker is Schiirer’s 
view (Theol. Abh. C. Weizsacker gewidmet, 1892, S. 37 ff.), that Jezebel is the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 425 


Chaldean Sibyl, Sambethe (Prol. in Orac. Sibyll., ed. Rzach, p. 4. 28) or Sabbe 
(Pausan. x.12. 9). This fancy is possible only on the basis of the wrong 
reading of Rev. ii. 20; furthermore, it is by no means settled whether the 
capBaGciov mentioned in an inscription at Thyatira, belonging to the time 
of Trajan or later (C. I. G. 3509), was a sanctuary of this Sau8ydy; finally, 
how can this purely mythical figure be made to agree with the text of Rev. 
il. 18-29, which unquestionably deals with actual events at the time when 
Rev. was written? It is necessary to suppose that at that time a priestess 
officiated in the sanctuary of Sambethe who pretended to be a prophetess, 
like the Sibyl, or a new incarnation of the Sibyl. In that case the name 
Jezebel would be the most unsuitable possible, since she was not a heathen 
prophetess, but the wife of an Israelitish king who had come out of paganism. 
Even accepting Schiirer’s false reading, there is still no doubt that “ Jezebel” 
belonged to the Christian Church. (1) In ii. 20 it is very plainly indicated 
among whom she passes as prophetess and teacher; she does not teach and 
lead astray a few persons who have been Christians and who have fallen back 
into paganism, or weak individuals who, while attending the Church services, 
at the same time visited heathen oracles, but the servants of Christ in 
Thyatira. Those who have suffered themselves to be led astray by her 
Gi. 22), are contrasted with the members of the Church who remained 
faithful (ii. 24); it follows, therefore, that all are Christians. A heathen 
prophetess, who promulgated her “teachings” only among Christians, 
would be a peculiar saint. (2) The content of her teaching (d.ddoxne, 
li. 203; riv Oidaxynv ravrny, li. 24) is exactly the same as that which in ii. 14, 
15 is called the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which were promulgated by 
alleged apostles (Rev. ii. 2, 6) among the Churches of Asia Minor. It is, 
therefore, evident that the false prophetess as well as the false prophets was 
outwardly a member of the Christian Church. (8) The angel or the bishop 
could not be blamed for permitting a heathen Pythia or Sibyl to do as she 
liked (éru ddeis xrd.) ; since he had neither power nor authority over her. 
The only thing he could be blamed for would be his failure to warn the 
Christians under his care against visiting the heathen temple and against 
the suggestions of this heathen soothsayer. (4) Jezebel and all her followers 
are under the discipline of Christ; more precisely the discipline of the 
Church exercised most signally and most comprehensively by Christ Himself 
(ii. 21-23, especially v. 23, waoai ai exxAnoia and opty). The fact that the 
exalted Christ has a part in God’s government of the world, and that God 
requires repentance also of the heathen,—something that does not need to 
be proved from the Szbylline Oracles (cf. Matt. xii. 41; Acts xvii. 30),—offers 
no justification for the assumption that Christ is here conceived of as the 
master who punishes Jezebel and her followers in order to bring them to 
repentance and as a warning to all the Churches (cf. per contra 1 Cor. v. 12). 
8. (P. 416.) Bengel (Erklarte Offenb. Joh. 1740, S, 262) saw that in iii. 1 
a proper name is presupposed connected with the word “Life.” The popular 
interpretation, “Thou enjoyest the reputation of living when thou art dead,” 
(1) presupposes the reading of the Text. rec. rd dvoya, which is entirely 
unauthenticated, and which even Luther was obliged to translate (“the 
name”), (2) There is no justification of the interpretation from usage. The 
passage, Herod. vii. 188, cited by Raphel, ii. 794, is not parallel, since the 


426 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


reference there is not to a person who as such would have a proper name, 
but to a warlike undertaking, the real purpose of which was concealed by 
false statements—a thought which would be expressed by AéyeoOa (1 Cor. 
viii. 5; Eph. ii. 11; cf. Rev. ii. 2, 9, 20, 39); dvoud¢er@a (1 Cor. v. 11), or 
doxeiv. (3) On this hypothesis it would be necessary to explain how the 
angel secured the unjustified reputation of being alive. It would be 
necessary to call him a hypocrite and to unmask him. That évoya is here 
a proper name is further evidenced (cf. ii. 17, iii. 12, ix. 11, xix. 12) by the 
fact that in the immediate context, iii. 4, and only here dvduara occurs in 
the sense of “persons,” and that in iii. 5 évoua (cf. Phil. iv. 3) is again used 
to designate the proper name. If, then, the meaning be, “Thou bearest a 
name (which signifies) that you live,” it must be either Zoowos or Zarixds. 
The latter is the more likely, because this name occurs very frequently in 
the inscriptions of the province (Forsch. v. 94; cf. also Ramsey, Cities and 
Bishoprics, i. 390, 392, 475, 525, 533, 536, 539, 564, 656 f., 702, 705, 744, 760, 
761, and the inscriptions in Altert. von Hierapolis, 8. 87, 89, 114, 140, Nos. 41, 
46, 133, 220); Zosimus, on the other hand, is comparatively rare (e.g. C. I. G. 
3509 ; Ramsey, op. cit. 472f., 585); moreover, Cacmos as an adjective is rare, 
while ¢erixds occurs frequently (=vividus, vegetus). The suggestion of the 
meaning of the word brings to mind not only the opposite idea vexpds et, 
but affects also what follows: ver. 2, dmo@avetv ; ver. 5, 7 BiBdos ris Cans. 
For a similar use of the literal meaning of proper names, see vol. i. 456, n. 5. 

9. (P. 417.) According to Mart. Polyc. xix. 1, Polycarp was put to death 
in Smyrna in the year 155, either as the last of the twelve Christians, who 
in part, at least, had been brought thither from Philadelphia (according to 
the reading Sdéxaros), or as the thirteenth, after the twelve Philadelphians 
had preceded him in death (according to the more probable reading dadexa). 
If any other Smyrneean besides Polycarp suffered martyrdom at this time, 
in the detailed account which we have there would necessarily be some 
trace of it. 

10. (P. 417.) In the light of second century usage there can be no doubt 
that 7 xupiaxn juépa means Sunday, and not the Christian feast of the 
Passover (cf. Zahn, Shizzen, 2 Aufl. 8. 354, A. 16). The fact that Sunday 
is no longer designated by its Jewish name, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 2; Acts xx. 7, 
and in the Gospels, but by the Christian name in use later, is proof of the 
relatively late date of the composition of Rev. It would have been in 
bad taste to use this in John xx. 1, 19. 

11. (P. 418.) If the saints in Thyatira are taken as the subject of és 
Aéyovow in ii. 24, these words are superfluous, since John’s judgment con- 
cerning the teachings of the Nicolaitans cannot differ from that of the saints 
in Thyatira. If, on the other hand, the Nicolaitans are the subject, they 
would hardly be made responsible for the opinion that their pious opponents 
lack knowledge of the deep things of Satan; in that case exeivo. would 
hardly be lacking before Aéyouow. The meaning is rather, that the 
Nicolaitans themselves boast of such knowledge, and by the use of the 
slightly emphasised s Aéyovow John merely means to indicate that this 
expression is borrowed from the language of the Nicolaitans. In any case 
the saints are without “this alleged knowledge of the deep things of Satan,” 
of which the Nicolaitans boast. Not satisfied with the knowledge of the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 427 


deep things of God (1 Cor. ii. 10), they feel that they ought also to penetrate 
the abysses of Satan (cf. vol. ii. 225 f., 246, 280f.). 

12. (P. 419.) The opinion of Baur (Christent. der drei erst. Jahrh., 2 Aufl. 
8. 81) and his school, that Rev. ii, 2 is aimed at Paul, is refuted by the fact 
that we have kai ovx« e«iciv, not joav, which excludes all possible reference 
to the deceased Paul. The opinion that aspersions are cast on Paul, who 
wrote 1 Cor. vi. 12-20 and viii. 1-x. 33, as a representative of the teachings 
described in Rev. ii. 14, 20, and that the angel of the Church of Ephesus, 
which owed its existence to the work of Paul, is praised because he rejected 
Paul and his assistants as false prophets, and the opinion that the apostle 
John, whose attitude toward Paul we know from Gal. ii. 9, is responsible for 
such foolish utterances—need only to be stated to be refuted. There is no 
more definite description of the false apostles in ii. 2 or of the Nicolaitans 
in ii. 6. But since in ii. 2 the bishop’s action in trying and rejecting the 
false prophets is mentioned as an example of his praiseworthy intolerance 
of evil men, and since in ii. 6 his hatred of the conduct of the Nicolaitans is 
the only praiseworthy act of his mentioned, we infer that the false prophets 
must have been representatives also of the teachings of the Nicolaitans. 

13. (P. 419.) The best treatment of the Nicolaitans is that of 
WoHLENBERG in NKZ, 1895, S. 923-961. The most important sources 
are Iren. i. 26. 3, iii. 11. 1; Clem. Strom. ii. 118, ili. 25-29; Hippol. Refut. 
vii. 36, and in the writing addressed to Mammea (Hippolytus’ Kleinere 
Schriften, ed. Achelis, p. 251). Victorinus also has some distinctive remarks 
on Rev. ii. 6 (Migne, v. col. 521). According to Irenzus and Hippolytus, 
Nicolaiis himself fell into error ; while Clement, in order to prove Nicolaiis’ 
innocence, charges the Nicolaitans with misconstruing innocent words and 
actions of his. The latter view only shows how hard it was to believe that 
an early Christian mentioned in the N.T. could become a heretic, and is 
proof of the historicity of Irenzus’ account. The opinion current since the 
time of Vitringa (Comm. in apoc., ed. ii. 1719, p. 65f.), that NixdAaos, from 
which the term Nicolaitans is derived, is a translation of oyba cannot be 
maintained. While those who really know Hebrew would rightfully and 
necessarily take exception to this translation, certainly inaccurate and 
probably false, to Christians in Asia Minor unfamiliar with Hebrew, the 
term would be entirely blind. They would more naturally infer that the 
teaching referred to in ii. 15 was different from that referred to in ii. 14. 
Actual translations, such as (nAorns, Luke vi. 15, or passages where it is 
expressly said that words are translations, as John i. 38-42, xix. 13, 17, 

xx. 16, Rev. ix. 11, cannot be cited as parallels. Such a translation would 
have served no purpose, since Balaam, like Jezebel, was a familiar historical 
figure, having a typical significance (2 Pet. 11. 15; Jude 11, vol. ii. 235, n. 3), 
and therefore Balaamites would have been much more intelligible than 
Nicolaitans, if there were no real Nicolaiis and no real Nicolaitans. If there 
were such, however, these must be meant; and it would be a strange 
accident if the name Balaam, which is unquestionably mentioned because of 
the historical importance of this person, and not because of the literal 
meaning of the name, could seem to one imperfectly acquainted with Hebrew 
to be a translation of Nicolaiis. Furthermore, the right place for the com- 
parison of Balaam and Nicolaiis would be ii. 6, not ii. 14f. 


428 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


§ 74. THE AUTHOR OF REVELATION. 


Since the author, who gives his book the form of a 
message to the seven Churches, begins his writing with 
a greeting, he has occasion to introduce in the greeting 
his own name (i. 4). But he calls himself by this name 
also in i. 9, xxii. 8, and in the title of the book, i. 1. 
From the explicit manner in which the author says in 
xxi, 8, “I, John, am he who saw and heard this,” we 
infer that the reason for the repeated mention of himself 
is the feeling that the one who has received revelations 
(i. 2, xxii. 18) should in person testify to the truthfulness 
of his account (Dan. vii. 2, 15, vii. 1, ix. 2, x. 2). The 
name indicates that he was a Hebrew (n. 1), and this is 
fully confirmed by his language. He is, therefore, to be 
regarded as a Christian of Jewish origin from Palestine 
who settled in Asia Minor. From the absence of all 
modifying clauses attached to the name except that of “a 
servant of Christ” (i. 1), it is clear that he was the only 
person of this name known among the seven Churches, or, 
if there were other Hebrews with this name, they were 
entirely overshadowed by this John. Unless the author 
were distinguished throughout the entire circle of Churches 
addressed, and were familiar with their conditions, the 
passage i, 4-1. 22 would be quite incomprehensible. 
This conclusion is not affected by the fact that the com- 
munications he sends had their origin in visions. From 
this it follows that he was, or pretended to be, the well- 
known John of Ephesus, the author of the Fourth Gospel 
and of the three Epistles bearing this name, whom we have 
found to be the apostle John. 

Of writers who do not think that Revelation can be 
attributed to the apostle, Dionysius of Alexandria is the 
first to suggest the identity of the author of Revelation 
with John Mark; but he refuses to make John Mark the 
author of Revelation, because of his inability to make this 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 420 


agree with the statements in the N.T. concerning Mark 
(n. 2). Nor have modern writers who hold Mark to be 
the author of Revelation, or of some parts of it, been 
able to get over this difficulty. This John, with the 
Roman surname Mark, is never designated among Gentile 
Christians (Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11; 
1 Pet. v. 13) and in the tradition of the early Church 
by his Hebrew, but always by his Roman name. The 
name John is never added, except in passages where 
reference is had to his early history (Acts xii. 12, 25, 
xiii. 5, 13, xv. 37), and then always in such a way as to 
make it clear that in the Gentile Christian Churches the 
Roman had replaced the Hebrew name (Acts xv. 39), just 
as Paul had taken the place of Saul. In the year 62 
Mark was as yet personally unknown to the Asiatic 
Churches (Col. iv. 10; vol. 1. 442, 450, n. 4). Apparently 
he came to Asia shortly thereafter, but only for a short 
time; since we find him in Rome toward the end of 
the year 63, or at the beginning of the year 64 (1 Pet. 
vy. 18). He was again in Asia in the year 66, but is 
directed to come again to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11). Mark’s 
permanent residence in the province of Asia, prior to the 
year 67, is out of the question (vol. ii. 427 ff). Since, 
however, the apostle John and others belonging to the 
apostolic group settled in this province not later than 
the year 69, it is impossible that thereafter Mark should 
come to occupy a position such as that occupied by the 
author of Revelation. Least of all could he introduce 
himself in this work as the one distinguished John known 
to the Churches in Asia; for this name belonged to the 
aged John of Ephesus, ¢.e., the apostle John. 

Surprise has been expressed that the author did not 
call himself an apostle; but this overlooks the fact that 
Paul even, who more than any other apostle had occasion 
to call attention to his apostleship, and who made use of 
such opportunities, fails to use this title in a number of 


430 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


his letters to the Churches (1 Thess. i. 1; 2 Thess. i. 1), 
occasionally also designating himself simply a slave of 
Christ (Phil. i. 1; cf. Rev. 1-1). It is also to be remem- 
bered that in writing his Epistles John does not use the 
apostolic title, and that the use of it is almost entirely 
avoided in the Gospel (above, p. 227, n. 9). But the most 
important consideration of all is the fact that the present 
work gave him no occasion to call himself an apostle. 
Any member of the Church possessing prophetic gifts may 
become the recipient of a revelation, and the high regard 
in which John was held in the Church of Asia, such as is 
certainly presupposed by the simple manner in which he 
introduces his own name in Rev. 1. 4, 9, is due much less 
to his position among the Twelve, than to the fact that he 
was able to bear testimony as one who had heard and seen 
Jesus (1 John i. 1-4, iv. 14). Of this fact the readers 
are reminded at the very beginning of the book. When 
he falls down as one dead before the majestic gaze of the 
Lord who appears to him, he is again heartened by the 
familiar summons, “ Fear thou not, it is 1” (i. 17). At 
the same time, the hand of the Lord, whom he has 
previously seen, heard, and handled (1 John i. 1), rests 
upon his head to comfort and reassure him (n. 8). 

It has also been considered strange and inconsistent 
with the apostolic dignity of the author, that in xxi. 14 
he should relate in so naive a manner what he had seen, 
namely, the names of the twelve apostles written upon 
the twelve foundation stones of the wall of the Jerusalem 
coming down to earth. In that case words like Luke 
xxii. 30, Matt. xix. 28, which only apostles could have 
heard and repeated, must be the invention of persons 
who were not apostles; and when Paul wrote 1 Cor. i. 28 
and Eph. i. 20, i. 5, iv. 11, he must have forgotten that 
in 1 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1 he had very solemnly declared 
himself to be an apostle. John has never been able to 
satisfy his critics (n. 4). When, as in the Gospel and 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 431 


the Epistles, he refrains from using his title of honour 
explicitly, it 1s evidence that he has occasion to conceal 
something; on the other hand, if, as in Revelation he 
mentions his own name, it is the sign of disagreeable 
obtrusiveness. If he emphasises, as in John xix. 35, 
1 John i. 1-4, the fact that he was an eye-witness, it 
betrays a suspicious design; if, as in Revelation, he lets 
his historical relation to Jesus remain in the background, 
it is proof that the relation did not exist. When he 
happens to speak once objectively of the twelve apostles, 
this is just as conclusive evidence that he was not one of 
their number, as if he called himself the presbyter instead 
of the apostle. 

Nor does any real problem arise from a comparison of 
the teachings of Revelation with those of the Gospel and 
of 1 John. The single fact, discussed above, p. 312 ff., that 
in all three of these writings, and nowhere else in the 
whole of early Christian literature, save in the writings 
which can be shown to be dependent upon the Johannine 
writings, 0 Neyos is used as a comprehensive name for the 
Christ ; and this usage presupposed, has more weight than 
all the objections based upon supposed irreconcilable 
contradictions between ideas found in Revelation and the 
other Johannine writings (n. 5). It would require almost 
an entire interpretation, not only of Revelation, but 
more especially of the Gospel, in order to correct all the 
misunderstandings, which in this instance have hindered 
the acceptance of the correct view concerning the relation 
of these two works—as, for example, when one discovers 
in the Gospel the disappearance of the early Christian 
prophecy and hope, or a universalism in which the special 
position of Israel is totally denied, or a tenderness nullify- 
ing all serious thought of the wrath and judgment of God. 
Furthermore, one who regards both the discourses of the 
Gospel and the visions of Revelation as pure inventions, 
will necessarily make demands relative to similarity in 


432. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


idea and language between writings purporting to be from 
the same author, entirely different from the demands 
which one will feel himself compelled to make who regards 
the Gospel and Revelation not, to be sure, as stenographic 
reports, but as faithful accounts of a witness concerning 
what he had seen and heard. Jesus uses language in 
His earthly life and says things to His earthly companions 
different from the language and the message of the exalted 
Lord in visions to His servant and prophet. And still 
He is the same person. 

The only real problem is that arising from the great 
difference in style observable between the Gospel and 
Kpistles on the one hand and Revelation on the other. 
Here, first of all, it is necessary to correct the exaggerated 
statements made as early as the time of Dionysius the 
Alexandrian, concerning the good Greek of the Gospel 
and Epistles (n. 6). Even the Fourth Gospel must have 
been written by a Hebrew. Only by confining one’s 
attention to a narrow group of expressions is it possible 
to overlook the gross violations both of the spirit and 
rules of the Greek language in the Gospel. Furthermore, 
in Revelation phenomena of this kind are for the most 
part due not to ignorance of Greek, but in particular 
instances to intention (n. 7), and to the dependence of 
the visions themselves and their literary form upon the 
model of the prophetic writings of the O.T. Oral and 
written prophecy in the apostolic Church had its own 
peculiar style, following closely the O.T. model, as did 
also the thoughtful didactic addresses and the historical 
narratives, and the Psalm. Consequently the same man, 
when writing as a prophet, would necessarily use language 
different from that which he would employ in a didactic 
communication to the Churches committed to his care, or 
in writing an account of the deeds and sayings of Jesus. 
Then it must be remembered that in the nature of the 
case the relation of the prophetic writer to his subject 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 433 


is one of much less freedom than in any other form of 
composition. Particularly when his prophecy is based 
upon visions, received in an ecstatic state, everything is 
received, not only the material, but also the form. All 
that he has to do is to put what he has seen into words, 
and for this reason he is much less inclined than is the 
historian and the teacher to polish or to permit to be 
polished for him the style of his first draft. The original 
account, written under the immediate impression of the 
vision beheld, is the best, because the most faithful. The 
more important the contents, the less important the form. 
With all the difference of content and form, however, 
there are significant agreements between the language of 
Revelation and the Gospel (nn. 5, 6). 

The tradition regarding the origin of Revelation, the 
testimony of the book itself in those portions which have 
to do with the circumstances under which it was written, 
and in single expressions, and in the impression received 
from the whole book that it is a genuine product of early 
Christian prophecy, are all in harmony with the position 
that Revelation was written by the apostle John in the 
year 95 during his exile on the island of Patmos, and that 
it was received and handed down by the seven Churches 
to which he sent it as being really what it claims to be in 
its title. This conclusion has yet to be defended against 
that construction of its prophetic contents—a construction 
frequently shown to be untenable, but nevertheless not 
abandoned—according to which the book, either as a 
whole or in many of its parts, is thought necessarily to 
have been written considerably earlier. 


1. (P. 428.) The present writer knows no Jew of the Graeco-Roman 
diaspora with the name of John; whereas, eg., Jude, Joseph, Jonathan, 
Samuel, Miriam, and Salome occur in Roman inscriptions. Cf. also Forsch. 
vi. 176, A. 1. It was not until long after the time of Revelation that the 
custom arose among the Christians of calling themselves by the names of 
apostles (cf. Dionysius in Eus. vii. 25. 14). 

2. (P. 429.) Dionysius in Eus. vii. 25. 15 rejects the idea that Mark is 


VOL. III. 28 


434 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


the author only because of Acts xiii. 5,13. Hu1rzie (Uber Jo. Mr. und seine 
Schriften, 1848) declares Mark to be the author of the whole of Revelation. 
Spirra (see above, p. 407, n. 11) declares him to be the author of an Ur- 
Apocalypse preserved principally in Rev. i. 3-iii. 22. 

3. (P. 480.) Rev. i. 17 is correctly understood by Iren. iv. 20. 11 
(“quoniam ipse est, in cujus pectore recumbebat ad ccenam”); also by 
Herder (Maranatha, 8. 18, notwithstanding his wrong division of sentences, 
S. 11). In favour of this interpretation is the clear suggestion of John vi. 20 ; 
Matt. xiv. 27, cf. Luke xxiv. 38f.; John xviii. 5. Furthermore, if 6 mpéros 
kal 6 €cyaros were here used predicatively, and not in apposition to éye, there 
would be absolutely nothing in it to relieve the overwhelming impression of 
the vision, and to allay fear, as is the case in all other sentences in the Bible 
which follow pi oBod, PoBeicbe. Following i. 8 (cf. xxi. 6) so closely, it 
would be even impossible to avoid the misunderstanding that the one who 
here appeared is God the Lord Himself,—a mistake which would not be cor- 
rected until i. 18. It is also to be observed that in Rev., which in this 
respect resembles the doctrinal Epistles rather than a Gospel, the person of 
the Lord is frequently called simply "Incots, even when the reference is to 
His exaltation and the religious attitude toward Him (i. 9, xii. 17, xiv. 12, 
xvii. 6, xix. 10, xx. 4, xxii. 16). Naturally the author is acquainted with 
the solemn formulas of i. 1, 2, 5, xiv. 13 ; uses also Xpiords in suitable places, 
xi. 15, xii. 10, xx. 4, 6; prays to Him as “ Lord Jesus,” xxii. 20; but he is not 
in the habit of using 6 xipws or 6 Xpiords instead of the proper name, any 
more than does the John of the Gospel and the Epistles. He is too close to 
the historical manifestation of Jesus to do this. 

4, (P. 430.) Dionysius, in Eus. vii. 25. 6-13, is an example of false 
criticism of John’s mention of himself in Rev. The Alogi also seem to have 
criticised 1 John i. 1-4; GK, ii. 50. 

5. (P. 431.) As has been shown above, pp. 312 f., 327 f., in discussing the 
“Logos doctrine” of the Johannine writings, it is not a formula capable of 
several interpretations and differently understood by different writers, in the 
use of which the Gospel, Rev., and the Epistles agree, but it is the idea which 
comes out more clearly in Rev. than in any other early Christian writing, 
whereas the form in which the idea is expressed changes (Gospel, 6 Adyos ; 
Rev. 6 Adyos rod Geod 6 auyy; 1 John, 6 Aoyos ras Cw7s). Jesus could be 
called “Logos” even if He were not in an eternal manner God. But Rev., 
the Gospel, and Epistles agree in ascribing this estimate to His person. 
While the angels will not accept any worship (Rev. xix. 10, xxii. 9), there is 
no objection when John falls down at the feet of Jesus (i. 17). He addresses 
Him with the marana tha of the liturgy (xxii. 20; cf. vol. i, 303, n. 12), and 
all the inhabitants of heaven include Him in their worshipful praise of God 
(v. 9-14; cf. vii. 10, xi. 5). With God and His sevenfold Spirit He is the 
source of grace and peace, i. 5. To Him are ascribed the attributes, “the 
first and the last,” which seem to belong inalienably to God, i. 17, xxii. 13; 
ef. also i. 8, xxi. 6. Like God, He stands at the beginning not only of history, 
but also of the created world, which is inconceivable without the presupposi- 
tion that He had part in the creation (iii. 14; ef. John i. 3; Col. i. 15-18), 
And yet Hecalls God both His God (ii. 7, iii. 12) and His Father (iii. 5, 21 ; 
ef, John xx. 17), and confesses that all that He has was received from His Father 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 438 


(Rev. ii. 27, i. 1; ef. John iii. 35, v. 22, 27, xvii. 2). In view of His earthly 
and human vocation He is called the faithful witness (i. 5, ili. 14), which 
agrees perfectly with the Fourth Gospel (xviii. 37). Reference to the Con- 
cordance under paprupeivy and paprupia (found elsewhere only in Mark xiv. 
55-59 with reference to false witnesses) shows that all the Johannine writings 
have the same author. Jesus is called 7d dpviov only in Rev., where the word 
occurs twenty-nine times; the word occurs elsewhere only in John xxi. 15, 
while the figure itself is found in John i. 29, 36 in the testimony of the 
Baptist, which led this apostle to Jesus. Only in Rev. xxi. 2, 9, xxii. 17, and 
John iii. 29 is the Church directly called the vipdy of Christ, ete. The claim 
of Dionysius, op. cit. § 22, that Rev. has not a single syllable in common with 
the Gospel and 1 John, is a foolish exaggeration. 

6. (P. 432.) Dionysius’ contrast between the style of Rev. and that of the 
Gospel, op. cat. §§ 24-27, is just as much exaggerated as what he says con- 
cerning the teachings (see n. 5). Cf., on the other hand, Origen’s carefully 
weighed judgment of the style of Heb. in comparison with Paul’s Epistles in 
Kus. vi. 26.11. In the latter case the comparison is between writings of the 
same class; but, leaving that out of account, the relation is altogether different 
from that existing between Rev. and John. Concerning Hebrew words and 
Hebraisms in the Gospel, see above, p. 353, nn. 13, 19f.; in Rev., see below, 
p. 447f. It is noteworthy that in each writing John once neglects to make 
clear to the readers through translation the idea associated with a name which 
is called Hebrew (John v.2; Rev. xvi. 16; p. 353, n. 13). To be noted also is 
the Hebraistic use of éx in the sense of a partitive gen. (above, p. 283, n.2). The 
use of the neuter to describe persons (John vi. 37, 39, x. 29) in Rev. iii. 2; 
the use of the article as in John iii. 10 (“ the official teacher among us,” or “of 
us two”), also Rey. iii.17. Cf. also single characteristic phrases such as those 
found at the end of each book referring to their respective contents, Rev. 
xxii. 18, 19; John xxi. 20 (yeypappéva ev TO BiBAl@ TovT@), Or od oidas (“thou 
knowest better”), Rev. vii. 14; John xxi, 15-17. 

7. (P. 482.) When a writer who uses dé with the gen. between thirty 
and forty times writes once (i. 4) dd 6 dy kal 6 Hv Kal 6 épxopevos, it must 
be because he wants to indicate that 6 dy «rid. is used as an indeclinable 
proper name, as a paraphrase for Yahweh. Also 6 jy (cf. also i. 8, iv. 8. xi. 
17, xvi. 5) must likewise be an intentional substitute for an omitted im- 
perfect or aorist participle. Just as ré can be placed before any part of 
speech whatever when the reference is to objects, so 6 can be used (cf. 
8 dun, iii. 14; above, p. 329, n. 8) when the reference is to persons. In 
i. 5, xx. 2, likewise, the disagreement in case between the noun and the word 
in apposition seems to be intentional, designed to give the word in apposition 
more prominence, by making it an independent exclamation ; this may be 
true also in the case of wAnpns in John i. 14 (but cf. Blass, Gr.? S. 81). In 
other instances (ii. 20, iii. 12, vii. 4, ix. 14) there may be actual solecisms, 
carelessness such as would be likely to occur in the ordinary speech of 
barbarians not yet fully Hellenised. The present writer does not regard 
it as impossible that the style of John’s other writings was revised by friends 
more familiar with Greek-than himself (cf. vol. i. 63 on Josephus), but that, 
for the reasons suggested above, p. 433, he failed to have this done in the case 
of Rev. 


436 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


§ 75. CONTEMPORARY-HISTORICAL OR FUTURIST 
INTERPRETATION. 


Without due recognition of the very definite tradition, 
and the evident marks of time in chaps. 1.-111., the attempt 
has long enough been made to determine the date of the 
composition of Revelation by the so-called contemporary- 
historical interpretation of its prophetic contents (n. 1). 
Especially since it was thought that it had been discovered 
that the number 666 (Rev. xiii. 18) represents the name 
of Nero, it has been held by the majority of German 
critics to be a proved fact that Revelation was written 
soon after the death of Nero (tJune 9, 68 a.p.), and 
shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem (August 70). 
The five kings, who had fallen (Rev. xvii. 10), are said to 
have been the five emperors from Augustus to Nero, and 
the sixth, who was ruling when Revelation was written, 
either Galba (+ January 69) or—if Galba, Otho, and 
Vitellius, who had brief reigns, are omitted—Vespasian. 
The seventh, who is represented as having already been 
emperor and as to come again as antichrist (xvii. 8, 11, 
ef. xii. 3, 12, 14), is supposed to be Nero, who, according 
to popular belief, was to return from the realm of the 
dead. In setting over against this interpretation and 
others of a similarly contemporary-historical character a 
futurist view, it must be recognised that they are not in 
every respect mutually exclusive. The former does not 
indeed deny that future events—the appearing of the anti- 
christ, the parousia of Christ, and the final jadgment—are 
predicted by John ; and the latter does not deny that these 
final events are announced as being near at hand, and 
are represented as intimately connected with present facts. 
This is the nature of all prophecy. It aims always at the 
final outcome, and is yet bound to the past and the present. 

Moreover, the origin of this prophecy in visions 
actually experienced does not alter the question, since 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 437 


the imagery of the ecstatic vision, as of the ordinary 
dream, is formed out of material present within the circle 
of vision of the seer or dreamer when awake. For 
Christians inquiring concerning the issue of the develop- 
ment of history and longing for the fulfilment of all of 
God’s promises (xx. 17, 20, v. 4, vi. 10), such material was 
at hand in the predictions of the O.T. prophets, especially 
Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, above all, however, in the 
prophetic testimony of Jesus, the possession of which alone 
secures to them a portion of the spirit of prophecy (xix. 
10, cf. John xvi. 13 f.), and in the prophecy of the Church 
—hbased upon this possession of the prophetic spirit (1 John 
ii. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5)—with which Revelation is con- 
nected as a new—and, as far as the present is concerned, 
the last—link of the prophetic chain beginning with the 
prophecy of Jesus Himself. The Christian prophets from 
the first had held in view the course of the historical 
development of the world and the signs of the times (vol. - 
i. 228 f., 235 ff., vol. u. 110 ff); John did likewise. It is, 
moreover, simply in agreement with the form of all N.T. 
prophecy, from the Baptist onwards, that the end is 
announced as imminent, the final coming of the kingdom 
of God and of Christ as rapid, sudden, and near at hand 
feos, i 11, xxi--7,/10,12; 20; ef Matt. aie 2-1 2's ae 
waste hom. xt Lit.;) Phil) iv. 5; Hebix: 37 ; iJon 
ii. 18; above, p. 371, n. 5). None the less, however, 
Revelation maintains the underlying principle of true 
prophecy, in withholding from men outside, and from the 
Church itself, a chronologically definite knowledge of the 
coming of the end (Matt. xxiv. 36; Acts i. 5; 1 Thess. 
v. 1ff.). It does not contain a single statement that even 
in obscure reference gives the period of time intervening 
between the present and the parousia. It also contains 
prophecies which must be fulfilled before the final events, 
if they are to be fulfilled at all. Among these are included 
not only the partly hypothetical words, ii. 5, 22, iti. 9 (ii. 


438 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


3, 19f.2), but also the persecution which will come upon 
the Church of Smyrna, and will cause the death of its 
bishop (ii. 8-11; above, pp. 417, 426). 

_ As far as the prophecies are concerned, which unques- 
tionably have in view the really final events, it has already 
appeared (above, p. 406, n. 9) that the naming of Jeru- 
salem as the spiritual Sodom—a name chosen from the 
point of view of the present— presupposes that the 
destruction of the former Holy City had already taken 
place. Further, the number of the forty-two months = 
1260 days = 34 years (xi. 2, 3, cf. xil. 6, 14, xiii. 5; Dan. 
vii. 25, xii. 7, 11) proves that this prophecy transports us 
into the time of the rule of the antichrist. It does not 
take its forms and colours from the pre-exilic prophecy 
of an Isaiah and a Jeremiah, but bases itself upon the 
prophecies of Daniel, which were uttered after the con- 
quest of Jerusalem, and foretold not a destruction of 
Jerusalem and the temple, but a desecration of the temple 
in the end of days. ‘To be sure, it is in the abstract 
conceivable that a Christian prophet before the year 70, 
like Jesus Himself, might have combined both kinds of 
prophecies without clearly explaining their mutual relation- 
ship. He might in this way have combined a prophecy 
of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, given in 
the tone and meaning of an Isaiah, a Micah, or a Jeremiah, 
with a prophecy of the “antichrist” in the meaning of a 
Daniel. However, apart from the fact that the Christian 
prophecy of the antichrist in the time of Paul shows no 
trace of a confused mingling of these radically different lines 
of thought (1 Thess. 11. 16; 2 Thess. ii. 1-12), nothing 
of the sort appears at least in Rev. xi. 1-18. There 
is no mention of a taking of Jerusalem by an army, but 
only of a rule of the Gentiles in Jerusalem during the 
period of the antichrist (xi. 2 f.). The destruction of only 
a tenth of the city, and the killing of only a small portion 
of the inhabitants, are not occasioned by a hostile army, 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 439 


but by an earthquake (ver. 13), and the temple suffered 
so little destruction at the hands of the Romans, that the 
main building with the outer courts of the priests, in 
which the altar of burnt-offering stood, together with the 
congregation, worshipping there, is to remain protected 
from every desecration by the Gentiles (xi. 1f.). No 
further proof should be needed to show that this prophecy 
could not have been made by a Christian before the year 
70 who knew only of the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the temple, prophesied by Jesus. It is only necessary to 
call to mind, that in the period from the death of Nero to 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish revolution had 
its reign of terror, with mutual destruction of the different 
party-groups. Since the Christians had fled to Pella, 
there was no longer in Jerusalem a worshipper of the true 
God, or a temple worthy of divine protection, but only 
Jews, who were no longer worthy of the name (Rev. ii. 9, 
iii. 9). No Christian could have judged this more mildly 
than the Jew Josephus (e.g. Bell. iv. 9.10). All these 
events lie behind Revelation, just as the destruction of 
Jerusalem by the Babylonians lies behind Daniel. 

By the beast with the ten horns and seven heads, 
which at the command of Satan comes up out of the sea— 
an image of the world of nations—and begins the last 
struggle of wickedness against God and the Church of 
Jesus (xiii. 1 ff), John could have understood only the 
world kingdom at enmity with God, and that too in its last 
development, since all the essential attributes and acts of 
the beast must have reminded him of Dan. vii. 2-27. 
However, in John’s writing, as throughout Daniel (ii. 
37 ff., viii. 20 ff.), the image of the kingdom changes to 
that of the kings who govern and represent it. The 
description of the transference of the rule to the beast 
(xiii. 2), the undoubtedly authentic masculine adrdv (ver. 
8) and és (ver. 14), as also the statement that the name of 
the beast is a man’s name (xiii, 18), demand this personal 


440. INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


heading up of the conception, without, however, doing 
away with the fundamental idea of a new and final world 
kingdom. From the connection of xii. 1 ff. with xi. 13— 
17 (cf. xi. 7), it appears that no more than its personal 
head was this last world kingdom in existence at the time 
of the writing of Revelation. Still more clearly it is stated 
three times in xvii. 8-11, with emphatic reference to chap. 
xili., that the beast does not exist in the present, and 
twice that it will appear in the future (uédr.e dvaBaiver 
and mapéora, ver. 8). There also the ten horns are in- 
terpreted to mean ten kings, who are allied with it and 
place their powers at its disposal. They, together with 
the beast, will receive the authority for a short period ; in 
the present, however, they have not received it any more 
than the beast (xvi. 12). On the other hand, however, 
the beast has already once existed and will again come up 
out of the abyss—+z.e. the world of the dead (cf. ix. 1f, 
11)—(xvii. 8, 11 three times %v Kai ov« éorw). The anti- 
christ and his kingdom are a power which had already 
appeared once in history, had then disappeared, and at the 
end of the times is to appear again in life. This is a 
fundamental thought of early Christian prophecy (vol. i. 
251,n.8). The same thought is expressed, xiii. 3, 12, 14, 
in the statement that one of the seven heads of the beast 
had received a mortal wound, which healed again. This 
means that the beast itself had received a death-stroke, 
and had come to life again (xii. 12, 14). The healing of 
the wound of the one head caused the world to wonder in 
the same way as did the coming up of the beast out of the. 
abyss (xill. 3, xvii. 8). In a certain sense, therefore, the 
beast is identical with its seven heads. This is even more 
clearly stated in xvii. 10f. Five of the seven heads had 
fallen, a sixth is standing at the time of .Revelation, a 
seventh has not yet appeared. But one of the five beasts 
which had already fallen will appear again, and this head, 
which was and is to come again, is absolutely identified 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 441 


with the beast (xvi. 11). On the other hand, the whole 
idea of the seven heads of the beast would be impossible 
were the meaning of the beast itself out and out identical 
with the meaning of one of its seven heads. An analogous 
relation must exist between it and the remaining six heads. 
The heads are consecutive phases of the greatness of the 
world kingdom at enmity with God through all changes of 
history, which the beast represents. This broader meaning 
of the beast, along with the narrower one, according to which 
it represents a single one of the seven phases,—namely, the 
antichristian kingdom and its ruler, who had existed once 
and was to return,—is expressed in xui. 2 by the state- 
ment that the beast bears in itself the marks of the three 
world rulers, which, according to Dan. vu. 4-6, precede 
the fourth and last. Accordingly, the seven heads cannot 
be individual rulers of one and the same kingdom, but 
only kingdoms which follow each other, together with 
their respective kings; so, for example, the Babylonian 
with Nebuchadnezzar, the Greeco-Macedonian with Alex- 
ander, and the Roman with Cesar at the head. The seven 
heads are interpreted in xvii. 10 simply as seven kings 
(Bacire?’s and not Bacwrelar); but this cannot lead one 
astray, for, as has been said, since the time of Daniel the 
idea of the kingdoms had become inseparably blended 
with that of their founders or representatives (n. 2). 

Since Revelation was written at the time of the Roman 
Empire, this is, according to xvu. 10, the sixth head ; 
another seventh kingdom will follow it, but will not long 
reign. Upon this follows the eighth,—that of the anti- 
christ,—which, however, is only a revivification of one of 
the five earlier kingdoms. Without question this is in- 
tended to be the Greeco-Macedonian and its typical ruler, 
the pre-Christian antichrist, Antiochus Epiphanes (vol. i. 
227, 237, n. 4, 238 ff.). The interpretation of the seven 
heads as the line of Roman emperors from Augustus or 
from Czesar onwards, which has confused many, is unten- 


442 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


able. In passing judgment upon the Roman kingdom as 
the antichristian kingdom of the end of the world, Revela- 
tion, in the first place, would step entirely out of the 
position which we see was held in the presence of the 
Roman Empire by Jesus (Matt. xxii. 21; John xix. 11), by 
Peter (1 Pet. ii. 13-17), by Paul (Rom. xiii. 1 ff. ; 2 Thess. 
ii. 6f.), and by the early Christian prophecy of which 
Paul approved ; further, by Clement of Rome, Melito, and 
Irenzeus (vol. i. 229f., 252 ff). At all events the Roman 
Empire is one of the consecutive world kingdoms which 
together form a contrast to the kingdom of God and Christ, 
or, speaking figuratively, it is the sixth of the seven heads 
of the beast. So then Rome, 7.e. the world-metropolis at 
this time, is represented as Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13; vol. i. 
163). The blood of saints and apostles has been shed in 
this Babylon-Rome, according to Rev. xviii. 20, under Nero 
(vol. ii, 165, n. 4). Probably also the seven hills, on which 
the harlot Babylon sitteth (xvii. 9), without detracting from 
their actual meaning (n. 2), are intended to refer to the 
seven hills of Rome. For that reason, however, Rome is by 
no means the Babylon of the last times, and the Roman 
kingdom the beast in his last antichristian development, or 
a Roman emperor of the immediate future the antichrist. 

In the second place, by this interpretation it would be 
wholly inconceivable how the beast, who accordingly must 
be the Roman Empire founded by Ceesar or Augustus, could 
be represented as an appearance of the closing period of 
the world. That the beast has already once existed does 
not alter the case; for the former existence, if fully 
separated from the future prophesied existence by a present 
non-existence (xvii. 8-11). 

The Roman Empire, however, has not ceased to exist 
since it was established, at least at the time of Revelation, 
when the Christians came to feel its power heavily enough. 
The interpretation of the seven heads as the Roman 
emperors succeeding each other is in the third place 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 443 


incomprehensible, as the killing of one of these heads is 
said to be at the same time the killing of the beast (xiii. 
3f., 12, 14, xvi. 8). By the death of Nero, or any other 
one of the emperors, before the time of Revelation, the 
continued existence of the Roman kingdom had never 
been questioned, much less had it ever ceased to exist 
(ef. vol. i. 229f.). Ifa Ceesar dies, there is another Ceasar 
who immediately lives and reigns. In spite of the tem- 
porary disturbances of the national unity, which were 
occasioned by the simultaneous reigning of several 
pretendants during the two years from the death of 
Nero until the general recognition of Vespasian, in Asia 
Minor at least the governmental machinery continued in 
activity, andin that section of the empire no provincial 
in 68-70 a.D. could think of the Roman Empire as dead. 
This contemporary-historical interpretation makes in the 
fourth place any acceptable interpretation of the ten horns 
(xiii. 1, xvii. 8, 12-17, cf. xii. 3) impossible. The idea, 
however, that the representation of the revivification of 
the fatally smitten beast or of one of its heads (xiii. 3, 14, 
xvii. 8, 11) rests upon the myth of the return of Nero, is 
irreconcilable with the history of this myth (n. 3). The 
notion, which arose soon after the suicide of Nero and at 
first among his heathen admirers, that he had not died, 
but had fled to the Parthians, and would return from that 
country to Rome to take vengeance on his enemies and to 
assume the throne again, existed unchanged until the 
beginning of the second century,—namely, until the time 
when it was no longer probable that Nero, who was born 
in 37 A.D., was still alive. We find this notion in two 
Jewish Sibyllists of the year 71, and about the year 80. 
In the field of just this literature, about 120 to 125,— 
namely, at a time when Nero could no longer have been 
alive,—the idea of his return appeared in the changed form, 
that Nero, the instigator of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
though long since dead, would return again to life with 


INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


( 444 

.sign§ and wonders. Finally, however, he would be de- 
stroyed in punishment for his last attack on the Holy City 
of the Messiah. A Christian Sibyllist about 150 to 160 
combined these Jewish notions with the statements in Rev. 
xili. 8, 15, xvii. 8, 11, and thus introduced into the 
Christian world one of the most confused ideas of which it 
was possible to conceive. The idea of the return of the 
dead Nero first arose when he could no longer likely be 
among the living, and the original form of the popular belief 
evidently for this reason only underwent transformation 
into the complete fantastic form; consequently this idea 
cannot be present in Revelation, whether it was written in 
69, when Nero, if still alive, would have been thirty-two 
years old, or about 95, in which year Nero would have > 
completed his fifty-eighth year. An oracle had warned 
him with regard to his seventy-third year, which he would 
have attained in 110 (Suet. Nero, xl.). Earlier than that 
date neither friends nor enemies, who believed in his 
return, had any occasion whatever for believing in a 
return from the dead. No thoughtful person, however, 
can consider it possible that Revelation was written after 
the year 110. 

Moreover, the interpretation of the number 666 as the 
allesed Hebrew form, op 3 (Népwv Kaicap), of the name 
Nero (n. 4), is extremely improbable. Revelation was 
written for Greek Christians, for whom it would be 
necessary to translate a Hebrew name, in order that they 
might grasp its literal meaning. The author makes use 
of only such Hebrew words as would be familiar to the 
readers from their liturgy or their Greek O.'T., like amen 
and hallelujah. He paraphrases the Yahweh name by a 
Greek participial form (i. 4), and does not use the Hebrew 
(n—x), but the Greek alphabet (A—) when he employs 
the first and last letters as a figurative expression for 
beginning and end (i. 8, xxi. 6, xxii. 13). He does not in 
any way indicate (xiii. 18) that it needed a knowledge of 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 448 


Hebrew and the numerical value of the Hebrew letters to 
solve the riddle. His readers could and had to understand 
him in no other way, than that the numerical values of the 
letters of the personal name written in Greek are summed 
up in the number 666. It was a fixed tradition (Iren. v. 
30) in the circles of the disciples of John in Asia Minor, 
that the Greek alphabet was to underlie any interpretation 
of Scripture ; and also those, who in the second century 
took the liberty of changing the number 666 to 616 in order 
to secure the name of the Emperor Caius (n. 5)—1e. 
Caligula—follow this self-evident rule. In fact, we perceive 
from this early change of the test, on the one hand, how 
foreign it was to the Christians, even of the post-apostolic 
period, to consider Nero as the type of the antichrist ; and, 
on the other hand, how still unforgotten the figure of the 
avt@eos Caligula had remained (vol. i. 227, 237, n. 7). 

The disciples of John, to whom Irenzeus appealed not 
only for the authenticity of the number 666, but also for 
the principles of interpreting it, discarded rightly the 
interpretation that it meant a former or future Roman 
emperor. They did not know, further, what name the 
number represented, but were convinced that at the time 
of the appearance of the antichrist, this prophecy also 
would be fulfilled, and that the agreement between name 
and number would assist the Church, at once and with 
certainty, to recognise their last enemy. This method of 
consideration is in accord with the “spirit of prophecy ” 
and the “testimony of Jesus” (Rev. xix. 10), as the apostle 
John has preserved it in his Gospel (John xiii. 19 and else- 
where ; above, p. 330, n. 10). That is the position which 
Christianity has taken from the beginning toward all 
prophecy, recognised as genuine. Genuine prophecy con- 
tains much which lies outside the consciousness of the 
prophet himself, and will first become clear through its 
fulfilment. It is on this account, nevertheless, a guiding 
star, before it is fulfilled, and does not become through its 


446 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


fulfilment in any way superfluous, but as fulfilled prophecy 
renders just then the greatest service to the Church. 

Whoever holds Revelation to be an artificial patchwork 
of a seer who has seen nothing, may make further effort 
to discover solutions of the number riddle 666, and in fact 
any other riddle of this book more satisfactory than have 
been found up to this time under these presuppositions. 
The rest of us, who, in memory of the warning of Paul 
(1 Thess. v. 20), find genuine prophecy in Revelation, of 
which we already understand something and hope later to 
understand more, shall, in face of the scorn which is not 
spared us, remember the words (1 Cor. xiv. 22) : 4 mpopnreta 
ov Tos aTriaTOLs, AAAA TOs TLTTEVOVTW, 


1. (P. 436.) A usable history of the composition of Rev., which would 
be almost equivalent to a history of Christian eschatology, has not yet been 
written. Cf., however, LUckrn, Kommentar diber die Schriften des Jo. iv. 1: 
Versuch einer vollstindigen Hinl. wn die Offend. und die gesamte apokal. 
Interatur, 1832. 

2. (P. 441.) A difficulty is certainly presented by the double interpreta- 
tion of the seven heads in xvii. 9 and xvii. 10f. But no confusion is created, 
simply because the two interpretations occur so close together. The inter- 
pretation, as seven kings, which alone is elaborated, is the only one which 
agrees with xiii. 1-3, 12, 14, since a mountain cannot be mortally wounded. 
At the same time, the identification in the latter passage and xvii. 11 of one 
of the heads with the beast, proves that the heads, like the beasts, cannot 
designate kings in distinction from kingdoms, but mean kingdoms together 
with their representative kings. Moreover, the fact that the harlot sits upon 
the seven-headed beast (xvii. 3), whereas in xvii. 9 she is represented as sitting 
upon the seven heads, presupposes that the beast is a world empire, and that 
the seven heads are phases of the empire, since the capital city of the world 
does not ride upon a king or upon a number of kings, but reigns over the 
world empire or over several successive world empires. If xvii. 9 were 
omitted, nothing essential would be lost. Just as the beast signifies not 
only the world empire of the antichrist at the end of time, together with 
its ruler, but also the world empire whose successive phases are represented 
by the seven heads from its beginning, so Babylon also is the capital of the 
world empire as such. It was situated formerly on the Euphrates, now on 
the Tiber, in the language of the prophets later perhaps it will be on the 
Seine or the Bosphorus ; but through all. historical changes it retains its old 
name. If, then, the beast be conceived of as an entity persisting throughout 
the course of history, then Babylon sits upon the beast ; if the point of view 
be the changing aspects of the world empire, then Babylon sits upon the 
seven heads. Ina stationary picture successive events are necessarily repre- 
sented as simultaneous. This is true also of the interpretation of the seven 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 449 


heads as seven mountains, which is not further elaborated. Of course, as the 
writer intended, the readers who regarded Rome as the Babylon of their 
age (1 Pet. v. 13), would necessarily think of the seven hills of Rome; and 
therefore they have always understood that Rome was intended by the 
Babylon of John, as by that of Peter (see vol. ii. 163, n. 3, 165, n. 4, 189, n. 
5; ef. Hippol. de Antichr. 36 ff.; Tert. contra Jud. ix. ; Jerome, preface in 
Libr. Didymi de spir. sancto; Andreas in Ayoc., ed. Sylburg, p. 75 ff., 81 ff.). 
However, even these seven mountains were only symbols of the places— 
probably upon earth—where successively the capital of the world has stood 
and is destined to stand (cf. Jer. li. 25). Of subordinate importance is the 
question as to the succession of world empires presented in Rev. Probably 
(1) Egypt with Pharaoh as the typical name of the king, (2) Assyria with 
Sennacherib, (3) Babylon with Nebuchadnezzar, (4) the Medo-Persian empire, 
(5) the Grzeco-Macedonian empire, (6) the Roman Empire with its Cesar, 
(7) the shortlived empire which is to come, to be followed by a renewal of 
the fifth empire of which Antiochus is the antitype, who is the antichrist 
of the last days. This is the eighth kingdom. 

3. (P. 443.) For the legend concerning Nero, cf. vol. i. 246 f., 252 ; Apok. 
Stud. ii. 337-352, 393-405. 

4, (P. 444.) In regard to the number of the antichrist, cf. Apok. Stud. 
i. 561-576. Its interpretation, as equivalent to 10p }73, was proposed first in 
1831 by Fritzsche (Annalen der ges. theol. Lit. i. 3, S. 42 ff.) and then by 
Benary, Hitzig, and Reuss, as it seems, quite independently both of Fritzsche 
and of one another (cf. Bleek, Vorles. wber die Ap. S. 292f.). The defective 
spelling 0p instead of the regular pp (as in the Talmud; cf. also Sh, Matt. 
xxii. 17, and the inscription found near Bostra belonging to the year 47 a.p. 
C. I. Sem. ii. No. 170), is the least suspicious thing about this discovery, 
Mention may be made of other Hebrew interpretations as follows : Vitringa, 
Comm. 633 ff., ppmx, from Ezra ii. 18 with reference to the 666 fellow-tribes- 
men, and without reference to the numerical value of the letters. Lightfoot 
(with whose view the present writer is acquainted only from Wolff, Cur. phil. 
in epist. Jac. etc. 1735, p. 546), wno from Num. xiii. 13; this gives the 
number 666, and the meaning of xno suggests pvornpiov. This is united by 
Herder (Maranatha, S. 148) with the interpretation no suggested by Portzig 
and purporting to mean apostasiw ; also Herder appropriates Lakemacher’s 
suggestion pyow / but does not, like its originator, refer it to the Rabban 
Simon, the son of Gamaliel (Schiirer, ii. 365 [Eng. trans. It. i. 365]), but to 
Simon bar Giora, the revolutionist (Schiirer, i. 621 [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 232)). 
Ziillig (Offend. Joh. ii. 247) proposes oop ry3 73 oyba, Jos. xiii. 22; but in order 
to get the number he wants, it is necessary to omit the indispensable article 
before nop and the vowel 1 twice. Aberle (ThQSc, 1872, S. 144) suggests 
nn (sic! supposed to mean Trajan). Volter (2 Aufl. S. 77), or Om 
(Trajanus Hadrianus). Bruston (Le chiffre 666, Paris, 1880, p. 11), v1 3 7793, 
Gen. x. 8,1 has to be omitted in the second name. Gunkel, S. 377, oan 
anoip, “ Chaos of the primeval age.” The well-known analogies adduced by 
Gunkel himself might well have suggested to him that an attribute without 
an article is questionable Hebrew. Several of these interpretations are 
worthy of the jest pobe 1», “Mr. Salmon,” in Salmon’s Historic. Introd. to N.T. 
(1885) p. 300. Greek interpretations.—Iren. v. 30. 3 gives us our choice 


| 


448 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


among Evdvdas, Terrdy, Aareivos, the last favoured by Hippol. (de Antechr. 50), 
although, according to the report of J. Haussleiter, the real Victorinus of 
Pettau gives no name; in the later editions of his commentary (Migne, v. 
col. 399), ”Avreyos and the Gothic name Tevonprxos are referred to as possi- 
bilities. Others suggest dpvodpa, “I deny,” or Papiscus (written Mazeicoxos), 
since the time of the ancient dialogue, “Jason and Papiskus,” a typical name 
for the Jew who contends with the Christian. More recent explanations are 
to be found Z/NTW, 1901, S. 109-114; 1902, S. 238-242 ; 1903, S. 167-174, 
264-267 ; 1904, S. 87-88, 257-261. 

5. (P. 445.) In his discussion of Rev. xiii., and after a theological ex- 
planation of the number 666 (v. 28-30), Irenzeus remarks in a supplementary 
way (v. 380. 1, cf. Forsch. vi. 70): “ His autem sic se habentibus et in omnibus 
antiquis et probatissimis et veteribus scripturis numero hoc posito, et testi- 
monium perhibentibus his, qui facie ad faciem Joannem viderunt, et ratione 
docente nos, quoniam numerus nominis bestie secundum Grecorum com- 
putationem per literas, que in eo sunt, sexcentos habebit et sexaginta et sex 

. ignoro, quomodo ignoraverunt quidam, sequentes idiotismum et medium 
frustrantes numerum nominis, quinquaginta numeros deducentes, pro sex 
decadis unam decadem volentes esse.” This reading 616 is also attested to 
by Cod. C (fifth cent.), by two cursives which unfortunately are no longer 
extant (5 and 11, cf. Gregory, Prolegomena, 676), and by the Donatist Tyconius, 
whose remarks on this point are to be inferred from the agreement of the 
three commentaries dependent upon him; those of the pseudo-Augustine, 
of Primasius, and of Beatus, cf. Haussleiter, Worsch. iv. 133, also by the tract 
on the monogram of Christ (Anecd. Maredsol. iii. 3. 195), ascribed by 
tradition to Jerome. Irenzeus was of the opinion that this reading origi- 
nated innocently through errors in writing ; since the numbers were written 
not only in numerals (thus Rev. xiii. 18, SACP sah. vg. S? S* Iren. and 
apparently also in his dpxaia cai omovdaia cai madaid avtiypada), but also 
in numeral letters (thus B, some cursives, Copt., and probably Hippol. de 
Antichr. 48, 50: xé’), # could easily be changed into I. Notwithstanding 
the present writer’s remarks in Aypok. Stud. i. 569, this is certainly possible, 
not only in the case of the old Doric form of the I (cf. Kirchhoff, Stud. z. 
Gesch. des griech. Alphabets, 3te Aufl. Tafel i.; Paleogr. Soc. series, vol. i. 
table after plate 101; Inscr. antiquiss. Gracie, ed. Rohl, Nos. 15, 17, 20 ff.), 
but also according to inscriptions and coins of the time of the emperors; ef. 
Ramsay, JHSt, 1887, p. 466f. It was not until later, according to Irenzus, 
that inquisitive persons attempted to give a meaning to the meaningless 
scribal error by endeavouring to find a name which it would represent. 
The gist of Irenzeus’ further discussion is that a Roman emperor was found 
designated by x. : an opinion which Irenzus controverts. Tyconius, who was 
familiar only with the number 616, makes no reference to an historical 
explanation. He thought that he discovered in the number the monogram 
of Christ, and, as Burkitt proves (Cambridge University Reporter, 1896, p. 625), 


in reverse position. x is held to be a combination of X=600, I=10, and 
the old form of the episemon=6, which at the same time stands for the 
name of Christ. This reversed Kk is, therefore, a suitable monogram for 
the antichrist. This meaning cannot be correct and original; for, in the 


THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 449 


first place, according to Irenzus, there is no doubt that 666, not 616, was 
the number written by John. In the second place, there is just as little 
doubt that this was originally written in numerals, not in numeral letters. 
This disposes of Irenzus’ well-meant supposition that the reading is due 
to an innocent scribal error, and likewise of Tyconius’ explanation, which 
is, moreover, based upon the incredible supposition that the monogram of 
Christ was in use at the time of Reyv., or, if the reading 616 is not genuine, 
at least some time before Irenzus ; see, however, vol. ii. 192f. Finally, it 
is impossible that the number 616 should have originated in this accidental 
way and afterwards been given a meaning, because, without any resort to 
artifice whatever, the number gives a thoroughly intelligible name, Idios 
Komap(l—=3, a=, .= 10, 0= 70, ¢=200) K=20, a=], += 10, o=200) a=4) 
p=100=616). This observation, which the present writer believed to be 
original with him in Apok. Stud. i. 571, is said to have been made earlier 
by Weyers, Disput. de libro apoc., Lugd. Bat. 1728 (so quoted by Ziillig, 
Offb. Joh. i. 147; others, 1828. The present writer has not seen the work). 
Because of the desire to find here a reference to Caius Cesar, 7.¢. Caligula 
(cf. vol. i. 228, 237 f.), before the time of Irenzeus, unknown persons residing 
in Rome or the West, not in Asia, changed the number 666 to 616. Spitta, 
S. 392 ff., holds the view that in the Jewish Apocalypse of Caligula’s time, 
which he makes one of the sources of the canonical Apocalypse (above, p. 
407, n. 11), the number 616 was found which meant Caligula, that between 
90 and 110 the Christian editor, by making the Hebrew alphabet his basis 
and changing 616 into 666, introduced the name Nero Cwsar, and that 
finally those who are opposed by Irenzus, on the basis of “an old tradi- 
tion” (S. 394), reintroduced the original number 616 from the Jewish into 
the canonical Apocalypse. It seems impossible to accept this explanation. 
For it represents the Jewish apocalyptic writer as basing his computation 
upon the Greek alphabet, while the Christcan apocalyptic writer living in 
Asia Minor uses the Hebrew alphabet! But most inconceivable of all is 
the interpolation about the year 150 of a canonical Apocalypse originating 
between 90 and 110 from a Jewish Apocalypse written about 40. Nothing 
is more common than a confusion of the texts of an earlier and a later 
recension of a Biblical book (cf. in the MSS. of the Vulgate the many 
elements which date from a time previous to Jerome). But this presupposes 
that the older recension has been used canonically for generations in the 
Church; and cannot be at once entirely displaced by the new recension. 
Phenomena of this kind offer no analogy whatever for the relation of this 
alleged Jewish Apocalypse to the Apocalypse of John, 


VOL. Ill. 29 


>. 
CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY. 


1. PReLtiminary RemarKs.—(1) It is not the purpose 
of this text-book to arrange the entire chronology of the 
history recorded in the N.T. and at the same time to 
fix the dates of the writings brought together in that 
collection. The relative chronology of these writings, 
however, has been established in many particulars by the 
investigation of the individual books. In order to con- 
struct their absolute chronology, there seemed to be de- 
manded, as the only sufficient thing, a complete enumera- 
tion and not a wholly superficial discussion of the possible 
synchronisms between the N.T. literature and general 
history, and of those synchronisms which do not as yet, 
but perhaps in the near future may help in fixing the 
dates absolutely. These synchronisms concern especially 
the history of Paul, the chronology of which has been 
discussed in recent years with particular interest. (2) 
Literature :—Bengel, Ordo temporum, 1741, 268-295; 
Wurm, TZfTh, 1853, 8. 3-103; Anger, De tempor. in actis 
apost. ratione, 1833; Wieseler, Chronologie des apost. 
Zeitalters, 1848; Hofmann, NZ. v. 11-17; Lightfoot, 
Bibl. Essays (written 1863), 1893, pp. 21-233; Aberle, 
ThQSc, 1886, 8. 553ff.; Aberle, Bzbl. Zeitschrift von 
Goittsberger und Sickenberger, 1903, 8. 256 ff. ; O. Holtz- 
mann, Niél. Zertgeschichte, 1895, S. 128 ff; Blass, Acta 
Apost. editio philol. 1895, p. 22 ff; Harnack, Chronol. 
der altchristl. Interatur, Bd. i. 1897, 8. 233 ff.; Belser, 
ThQOSc, 1898, 8. 353 ff; Ramsay, several articles in 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 451 


Expos. 1896, 1897, 1900; Bacon, Expos. 1898, 1899, 
1900; Schiirer, Z/WTh, 1898, 8. 21-42; Schiirer, Gesch. 
des Jiid. Volks*, i. (1901) in many passages, especially S. 
577 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. u. 181 ff.]; Honnicke, Chronol. des 
Apostels Pl. 1903; Zahn, PRE?*, xv. 62-68 (1904); 
Clemen, Paulus, Bd. i. (1904). (8) In the following 
remarks, which set forth the grounds for some of the 
principal dates in the table on p. 481 ff., the conclusions 
already reached in this book concerning the origin and 
trustworthiness of the N.T. writings, especially of Acts, 
are assumed. These remarks also recognise the principle, 
that in historical matters no writer is infallible, but each 
must be judged according to his historical position and 
probable intention in writing. For example, Tacitus is 
better acquainted with Rome than is Josephus; Josephus 
is better acquainted with Palestine than is Tacitus. 
Josephus (born in 37), though poorly informed concerning 
conditions among the Jews during the forty years prior to 
his birth and the first decade after it (above, p. 97 ff.), is 
the classical witness for the same conditions between 50 
and 70, and in questions concerning the order of events 
during this period certainly deserves incomparably more 
credence than the chroniclers, learned and unlearned, from 
the time of Julius Africanus onwards. Leaving out of 
account the length of time between a writer and the event 
which he records, in chronological questions the authority 
of even a mediocre historian who gives a connected 
narrative is greater than that of chroniclers who group 
together separate dates, generally on the basis of some 
scheme. Where the chronicler has used, or seems to have 
used, official lists of emperors or bishops and their years 
of office, he should be given a hearing; but it is certain 
that there were no such lists of the procurators of Pales- 
tine. Furthermore, it must be regarded as not per- 
missible to change dates which without variation are 
transmitted by such ancient and widely manifest tradition 


452 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


as that of the N.T. writings, ¢e.g., in Gal. 1. 1 to substi- 
tute for dia Sdexatrecodpwv, with Marcion (GK, ii. 497), 
dua tecodpwv, as proposed by Grotius and Reiche (Comm. 
crit. ti. 1-10), and accepted by Baljon (Komm. zum Gal. 
S. 16-19, 102). If in the future a text with this reading 
should turn up, every critic would certainly know that it 
was a correction due to such reflections as are found in 
the Chron. pasch., ed. Bonn, i. 436. Furthermore, on 
stylistic grounds, it seems impossible to reckon the fourteen 
years from the conversion of Paul (Gal. i. 15) instead of 
from the first visit to Jerusalem three years after the 
conversion (Gal. 1.18). Even omitting 7a in Gal. ii. 1, 
which refers directly to i. 18, with Marcion (GK, ii. 497), 
Iren. e¢ al. érevra, which is twice repeated in i. 18 and 
il. 1, shows that the three facts—the conversion, the first 
and the second visit to Jerusalem—are links in a chain 
(cf. 1 Cor. xv. 4-8), the second of which is separated 
from the first by. a space of fourteen years (cf. the ex- 
pression with that of Acts xxiv. 17); so that we have an 
interval of seventeen years between the conversion and 
the event narrated in Gal. ii. 1-10; cf ZKom. Gal. 76 Ff. 
Moreover, for the present writer as for most modern 
scholars there is no question that the events referred to 
in Gal. ii. 1-10 are the same as those of Acts xv. 1-29. 
This is evidenced not only by the practical identity of the 
- two accounts, but also by the impossibility of making any 
other combination. A combination of Gal. ii. and Acts 
Xvill. 22 is impossible, because in the latter passage Paul 
does not go to Jerusalem at all (above, p. 29 f, n. 8), and 
because Galatians was written prior to this time. But it 
is just as impossible to combine Gal. 11. with Acts xi. 30, 
xii. 25, because this journey with the collection took place 
in the autumn of 44 (see below), subtracting from which 
the seventeen years, we should have the year 27 as the 
date of Paul’s conversion, which is impossible. Even if, 
on the presupposition of the combination of Acts xi. 30 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 453 


and Gal. i. 1, it were admissible to subtract only fourteen 
years, Paul’s conversion would have to be dated in the 
year 30, which would make such combination very improb- 
able. In the opinion of the present writer, it is by no 
means certain in what year Jesus’ death took place; it 
certainly did not occur before the year 29. Moreover, it 
is impossible to crowd the events of Acts i.—ix. into the 
interval between the Passover of 29 and the autumn of 30. 
One needs only to recall the complete change in the 
attitude of the Pharisaical party and of the entire popula- 
tion toward the early Church—as contrasted with that of 
the Sadducees—which took place in the interval between 
the events of Acts i—v. and the events of Acts vi.—ix. 
This would require years. Furthermore, Rom. xvi. 7 
(vol. i. 418, n. 23) shows that Paul’s conversion could not 
have taken place until several years after the death of 
Jesus. The fact that Paul makes no mention of the 
journey with the collection in Gal. i. 1 is no reason either 
for such impracticable combinations, or for questioning the 
historicity of the journey with the collection in Acts xi. 
30. The historicity of the account is proved both by the 
general character of Acts and by the fact that Luke was 
in Antioch at the time when Paul and Barnabas were sent 
to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 27; above, pp. 2, 4, 28). Paul 
does not say in Gal. 11. 1 that after his first visit he re- 
mained away from Jerusalem fourteen years; this would 
have required just as positive a denial of his presence 
there as we have in i. 16-18 if there had been any 
occasion for such a statement. He merely says that he 
went to Jerusalem fourteen years after his first visit, and 
tells why. There is no claim that the narrative is com- 
plete, especially if méaw, which is by no means certain, 
be omitted. It will, however, be made clear below 
(p. 455 f.) why Paul omits mention of the journey with 
the collection, and why his opponents could not use this 
against him. 


454 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Finally, it is assumed that the regulations governing 
ancient traffic were used, where the sources do not expressly 
state otherwise. Navigation was regularly closed from 
the beginning of November until the beginning of March 
(according to Vegetius, de Re Mili. iv. 39, from Novem- 
ber 11 until March 10). According to the ancient calen- 
dars, the festival connected with the opening of navigation, 
the Naviguum Isidis (cf. Apul. Metamorph. xi. 7 ff. ; 
Lactant. Inst. i. 11. 21) fell on the fifth of March, CLL. 
i. 1 (ed. ii.) pp. 260, 280, 311. For the causes of this “ weak 
point in ancient navigation,” the mare clausum, see 
Breusing, Nautik der Alten, 8. 160. From 1 Cor. xvi. 6, 
Tit. iti. 12 (cf. Acts xx. 3, 6), we see that Paul took this 
into consideration in making the plans for his journeys. 
He awaits in port cities the end of the winter, z.e., the 
reopening of navigation. This is also the meaning of 
mapayeyuacev in Acts xxvil. 12, xxviii. 11. For this 
reason an assumption like that of Erbes (Due Todestage 
der Apostel Pt. und Pl. 8. 48f.), that Paul sailed from 
Malta on the twenty-sixth of January, is quite inadmissible. 
Particularly, after the experiences which the travellers 
had had on their way to Malta, this would have shown an 
incredible lack of caution on the part of the centurion 
Julius. Moreover, the latter was merely taking passage, 
and the decision as to whether, contrary to custom, the 
ship and cargo should be exposed to special danger rested 
primarily not with him, but with the captain of the Alex- 
andrian vessel. That part of the sea was regarded as 
especially dangerous (Polybius, i. 37), and an officer en- 
trusted with a responsible order would, according to 
Vegetius (op. cat.), exercise more, not less care, than the 
captain of a merchant vessel. In view of the character 
of his report in Acts xxvil.—xxvii., Luke could not have 
failed to note any departure from the rutile, or to have 
stated the reason for the particular haste of the Alex- 
andrian captain and for the consequent decision of Julius. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 4g 5 


The synchronisms will be noted in their chronological 
order. 

2. THe Erunarcy or ARETAS, 2.e., of the Nabateean 
king Harithath 1v., the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, 
showed himself hostile to Paul, according to 2 Cor. xi. 32 
( = Acts ix. 24), at the time of his flight from Damascus to 
Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18). 
The question need not be discussed whether Damascus 
was at that time, and only temporarily, a part of the king- 
dom of Aretas (mentioned by Gutschmid in Euting, Nabat. 
Inschr. 8. 85; Schiirer, 1. 737, ii. 82, 118 [Eng. trans. 1. 
ii. 857, 1. 1. 66, 98]). The present writer believes that 
on very good grounds he has disputed this position (NZ, 
1904, S. 34ff.; PRE?, xv. 62f.—in the latter of which 
articles he has contested other confused views). Certainly 
‘it was impossible to speak of an ethnarch of Aretas after 
the latter had ceased to live and reign. At the same 
time we cannot determine definitely either the beginning 
or the end of his reign, though from his coins and in- 
scriptions we know that he lived to see the forty-eighth 
year of his reign. His immediate successor, Abia, ruled 
under Claudius and in the time of Izates of Adiabene (Jos. 
Ant. xx. 4.1), the latest possible dates of whose successor, 
Malchus (Maliku) 1. (listed by Gutschmid as Malchus m1), 
according to Gutschmid, 8. 86, were from April 49 to 
April 71. But only the final date is certain, whereas 
the year of importance to us is that of the beginning of 
his reign. It is probable, however, that Aretas reigned 
from about 9 B.c. to 39 a.p. (Gutschmid, S. 65; Schiirer, 
i. 736 ff. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 356 ff.]). If Aretas’ reign did 
not extend beyond this year, Paul’s flight from Damascus 
must have taken place in the year 39, at the very latest, 
and his conversion at the very latest in the year 36. 
However, it may just as well have occurred several years 
earlier. 

3. Hrrop AGRIPPA I., who received the dominion and 


456 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


royal title of his grandfather from Claudius immediately 
after the accession of the latter to the throne, Jan. 24th, 
Al (Jos. Bell. ii, 11. 5; Ant. xix. 5. 1), died three years 
later (Bell. iti. 11.6; Ant. xix. 8. 2), ve. in the year 44, 
according to Acts xii. 3, 19, some time after the Passover. 
With this agrees the fact that the festive games at Ceesarea, 
on the occasion of which he died, were held in honour of 
the emperor, more specifically tmép ris éxetvou cwtnpias (Ant. 
xix. 8. 2), which can refer only to Claudius’ safe return from 
Britain in the spring of 44 (Dio Cass. lx. 23; Suet. 
Claud. xvii.; Eus. Chron. Abr. 2060; cf. Schiirer, i. 562 
[Eng. trans. 1. 1. 163]). The summer of that year must 
have come before the news of this event could have reached 
Palestine and been the occasion of extraordinary festivities. 
If this determines the chronology of the events in Acts 
xii. 1-23, the question arises as to the relation of the 
collection journey in Acts xi. 30, xii. 25, to the events 
which took place at the time of the Passover in the year 
44. There are three possibilities. Of these, the first is to 
be excluded, namely, that which makes the journey of Paul 
and Barnabas to and from Jerusalem take place before the 
events of xii. 1-23. In this case it is impossible to under- 
stand why xu. 25 is not added directly after xi. 30, 
especially since nothing is added after xii. 25, the narrative 
beginning in xiii. 1 being entirely new. The second possi- 
bility, namely, that the events recorded in xii. 1-23 
covncede with the visit of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem, 
is likewise to be rejected. In that case, (1) these events 
would naturally in some way be woven into the story of 
the experiences of Paul and Barnabas, and it would some- 
where be intimated that Paul and Barnabas witnessed 
these events in Jerusalem, and the story would not be 
inserted into the account by means of a very indefinite 
date like that in xii. 1. (2) The only natural explana- 
tion of mpos Tods mpecBurépovs in xi. 80 is the absence of the 
apostles from Jerusalem. The disposition of the collection 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 47 


money by the presbyters, with the apostles present in the 
city, is, of course, conceivable ; cf. vi. 1-6. But in x1. 30 
the Church to which the money was sent seems to be 
represented by the presbyters alone, among whom the 
“bishop” James is reckoned, notwithstanding his eminent 
position (cf. xu. 17, xxi. 18; per contra, cf. xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 
23, xvi. 4, Gal. 1. 1-10; Forsch. vi. 353). Only the third 
possibility remains, namely, that Paul and Barnabas came 
to Jerusalem after the events of xu. 1-23. Peter had 
already fled from Jerusalem (xii. 17). Inasmuch as Peter 
in departing speaks only of James and the Church, not of 
the other apostles, we infer that the latter, or as many of 
them as were then present in Jerusalem, had made use of 
their right to flee (Matt. x. 23) immediately after the 
execution of the apostle James and during the imprison- 
ment of Peter, since manifestly Agrippa’s designs were 
against the apostles in general. So Acts xii. 1-23 is an 
episode taken out of the past, which, apart from whatever 
independent value it may have, serves to show the con- 
dition of things which Paul and Barnabas encountered in 
Jerusalem. One apostle had been beheaded, another had 
been saved by a miracle and had afterwards fled, the others 
had left Jerusalem earlier. The direction of the Church 
was in the hands of James and the presbyters alone. 
Paul did not see an apostle on this occasion. Therefore 
he had no reason whatever to mention this journey wn 
Galatians. The only thing that follows directly from 
what precedes is the fact that the collection journey took 
place after the death of Agrippa 1. therefore at the earliest 
in the summer of the year 44. Since, moreover, the full 
year during which Paul and Barnabas were teaching 
together in Antioch (xi. 26) could have ended, not with 
the introduction of the name Christian, or with the appear- 
ance of Agabus (xi. 27), but only with an event causing a 
serious interruption in the teaching work, 7.e. with the 
journey with the collection, from which point the time 


458 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


(évavrdv ddov) is to be reckoned backwards, it follows that 
Barnabas could not have brought Paul from Tarsus before 
the summer of the year 43. But these dates (summer of 
43 and summer of 44), before which the events could not 
have taken place, must coincide very nearly with the actual 
dates. For, in the first place, if a year or more elapsed 
after Peter’s flight and the death of Agrippa, before Paul 
and Barnabas came to Jerusalem, the episode in xu. 1-23 
is inserted in a very awkward place, and fails to fulfil its 
purpose, namely, to show the condition of things at the 
time when Paul and Barnabas arrived. Moreover, the 
expression Kat’ éxeivoy tov Kasper, xii. 1 (cf. xix. 23), not- 
withstanding its flexibility, needs to be connected in some 
way with the context, and the only thing with which it 
can be connected is the collection journey, which ended 
the first full year of Paul’s work as a teacher in Antioch 
(xi. 26, 30). The events recorded in xi. 1-23 did not 
take place before the beginning of this year,—in which 
case the episode would belong before xi. 25, if it ought not 
to follow immediately after xi. 18,—but in the course of 
this year, from summer to summer, or autumn to autumn. 
Therefore the collection journey took place in the summer, 
or, since it was not customary to travel to the south in 
the hottest part of the year unless 1t was necessary, more 
probably in the autumn of the year 44,—the autumn of the 
year in which James had been put to death at Easter,— 
and Barnabas brought Paul from Tarsus in the summer or 
autumn of 43. But these dates must be further defended, 
in view of the misunderstandings which have arisen about 
the collection journey. The first occasion for the collection 
mentioned (xi. 28)is Agabus’ prophecy of a general famine. 
This very general prophecy (that 6d % oixovpévn cannot 
refer to Judea has been shown above, p. 180 f.) caused the 
Christians of Antioch to think at once of their poverty- 
stricken brethren in Judea, and led to the decision to raise 
a collection for them, each giving according to his ability. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY A%9 


The language in xi. 29 and the analogy of other collections 
(1 Cor. xvi. 1; 2 Cor. viii. 10, ix. 2) justify us in supposing 
that a year or more elapsed before the collection was com- 
pleted, and that it was not sent until much later. In 
x1. 30 (6 Kat éroincay, cf. Gal. ii. 10) the sending of the 
collection is clearly distinguished from the resolution to 
take and to send a collection. The difference in time 
between the prophecy and its fulfilment is even more 
clearly indicated in x1. 28. LEHvery unprejudiced reader 
would necessarily infer from the contrast between pérrew 
évec Oar and iris éyévero émt Kndavdiov that the prophecy was 
made im the time of Caligula (died January 24, 41), and 
fulfilled in the time of hrs successor Claudius (vol. i. 228 ; 
ef. Bengel, Ord. temp. p. 247). Since now xi. 25-26, 30, 
xu. 25, place us in the year between the summer or autumn 
of 43 and the same time in 44, it is clear that in xi. 27-29, 
according to his custom (above, pp. 64-68), Luke goes 
back to the time prior to January 41 in order to explain 
the journey with the collection in the autumn of 44. The 
date mentioned in xi. 27 (cf. vi. 1; Matt. i. 1) refers 
quite generally to the beginning of the Church in Antioch, 
described in xi. 19-26. No statement is made as to what 
occasioned the sending of the money, and to assume that 
the actual breaking out of the famine in Palestine caused 
it to be sent is arbitrary. If the indefinite prophecy of a 
single prophet was sufficient to lead to the collection of 
a charitable fund, any indication that this prophecy was 
about to be fulfilled could have led to the resolution to 
send the money at once to the poor Judeans, who had 
been in mind from the first. If, in addition, the news had 
reached Antioch of Agrippa’s persecution of the apostles, 
and of the orphaned condition of the Church at Jerusalem, 
then there was all the more reason for such an immediate 
exercise of brotherly love. The prophecy of Agabus, how- 
ever, did not begin to be fulfilled until after the beginning of 
Claudius’ reign, which was generally afflicted by assidue 


460 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


sterilitates (Suet. Claudvus, xviii. ; for further particulars 
see above, p. 130f.). For Luke this was sufficient fulfil- 
ment of the prophecy of Agabus, whose indefinite and 
popular language he does not hesitate to repeat. It was 
likewise sufficient to induce the Antiochians to send the 
money collected, without waiting for a great famine actually 
to occur in Judea. Although this makes the Pauline 
chronology really independent of the date of the famine in 
Judea, the following brief remarks concerning the latter 
may be made. According to Jos. Ant. xx. 5. 2, it took 
place under the procurator Tiberius Alexander. The 
correct reading in this passage is certainly not that 
adopted by Niese following the epitome émi rovrov, but 
émt tovtos, as in the Greek MSS., the Latin version, and 
Kus. H. #. ii. 12. 1; at the same time, however, it is 
unnecessary, with Anger, 43 f.; Wieseler, 157 f.; Lightfoot, 
216; Schiirer, i. 567f. [Eng. trans. 1. ii. 169 f.], to refer 
this to the last two procurators mentioned, namely, Fadus 
and Tiberius Alexander. Because, in the first place, 
Josephus, in the concluding sentence of xx. 5. 1, sharply 
distinguishes the history of the procuratorship of Fadus 
from what follows. In the second place, that construction 
would require the reading éml rovrwv. The phrase émt 
tovtos, like the following mpds rovrows (cf. also xx. 12; 
Niese, 267), is to be taken in a neuter sense, and means, 
as often in Eusebius, “ under these conditions and circum- 
stances,” and consequently “at this time”; chi HA. #. 
i. 1.3, 2. 20 (颒 ofs), iii, 4.11; chap. 12; 28.1; Mart. 
Palestine, xii. (beginning) (cf. xi. 31), practically the 
same as év rovrows, H. H. iv. 21, and év rovre, iii. 18. 1, 
iv. 15. 1, v. 18. 1, vi. 18.1. There is nothing in the con- 
text of xx. 2. 1 to indicate that the famine in connection 
with which the princess Helena distinguished herself by 
deeds of mercy (xx. 2. 5) occurred during the procurator- 
ship of Fadus (xx. 1. 1 f.), for the reason that xx. 2. 1 ff. 
deals with the conversion of Helena to Judaism. In this 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 461 


connection, Josephus speaks proleptically of her journey 
to Jerusalem, which was coincident with the famine (xx. 
2. 5), and, in the same way, speaks even of her death 
(xx. 4. 3). He then returns to the procuratorship of 
Fadus (xx. 5. 1), and only after he has given an account 
of the accession of Tiberius Alexander does he indicate that 
the activity of Helena belongs historically in connection 
with the famine (xx. 5.2). From xx. 1. 2 we know that 
Fadus was still in office in 45 (according to a more 
uncertain reading, on the 28th of June 45). According to 
xx. 5. 2, Tiberius Alexander was again recalled in the 
year 48; for Josephus connects this event with the death 
of Herod of Chalcis, which is dated by him in 48, by a «ai 
before which there should be no pause. The year is, 
therefore, the date of Alexander’s recall. This is not 
contradicted by the indefinite connection indicated in Bell. 
ii 11. 6. If we are willing to assume, contrary to the 
whole impression of the narrative in Ant. xx. 1. 1-5. 2, 
that the decree of Claudius, referred to in xx. 1. 2, belonged 
to the latter and not to the earlier part of Fadus’ term of 
office, and that Fadus held office a very short time, while 
Tiberius Alexander held office for a very long period, their 
respective terms of office must be divided somewhat as 
follows: Fadus, 44 to 46 or 47; Tiberius Alexander, from 
46 or 47 to 48. Therefore the famine in Judea certainly 
did not fall in 44 or 45, but took place between 46 and 48, 
probably 47 or 48. Even if repeated bad harvests from 
41 to 45 in various lands had raised prices in Palestine 
also, famine conditions did not exist there at the very 
earliest until 46, and so were not the occasion of the 
collection journey. Two further remarks may be added. 
In 2 Cor. xii. 1-4, Paul alludes to an experience of visions 
of a kind to give him a feeling of his importance for the 
rest of his life. Although, according to his own state- 
ment, fourteen years have elapsed since this experience 
took place, he speaks of it with the greatest animation and 


462 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


precision. When he confesses himself unable to give any 
definite account of his physical and psychical condition at 
that moment, it is not because the memory of it has faded, 
but merely because he is reproducing the first impression 
which one has upon awakening from a state of ecstasy 
(cf. Acts xii. 9). For him it must have been a very 
significant experience. Of course, the reference here 
cannot be to the experience near Damascus, as some 
ancient writers suppose, nor to his vision on the occasion 
of his first visit to Jerusalem subsequent to his conversion 
(Acts xxii. 17-21); for 2 Cor. was certainly written later 
than Galatians, in which we are informed that the apostolic 
council, which is spoken of as already past, took place 
fourteen years after the first visit and seventeen years after 
Paul’s conversion. By the vision referred to in 2 Cor. his 
thoughts were turned to a future mission to the Gentiles 
(Acts xxl. 21, éEamrocteXAo, not éEatroa Teh). It was 
necessary for him to wait for years in Tarsus until the 
Lord should redeem His word and send him to the Gentiles. 
In the summer of 43, Barnabas sought him out in Tarsus, 
and drew him into the missionary work at Antioch. 
According to the chronology here followed, 2 Cor. was 
written towards the end of the year 57. Subtracting 
fourteen years, we have the year 43. The two dates, 
arrived at independently of each other, agree in this, 
namely, that the significant revelation in 2 Cor. xii. 2, and 
the new call and actual participation of Paul in missionary 
work among the Gentiles, both fall in the year 43. Is this 
to be explained as chance, or do the two reckonings agree 
both as regards the year and even the time of the year, 
because the events mentioned in 2 Cor. xu. 2 and Acts 
xi, 25 were simultaneous? If several years before this 
Paul became aware that he was to receive a new manifesta- 
tion of Jesus, by which he was to be directed to preach to 
the Gentiles, he could not have begun this work until this 
revelation was received. Barnabas’ summons could not of 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 463 


itself have been sufficient. The fact that only the human 
summons is mentioned in Acts xi. 25 is merely an accurate 
illustration of the same relation which exists between Acts 
xv. 2 and Gal. ii. 2. The human summons does not 
exclude the xata dmoxadkuywv. But in both cases the 
historian Luke emphasises the external aspect of the 
matter, whereas Paul emphasises the supernatural side in 
the great crises of his life. A second remark needs to 
be added here concerning Peter’s visit to Antioch. In 
NKZ, 1894, 8. 435-448, the present writer claimed and 
endeavoured to prove that this visit took place before the 
apostolic council, probably shortly after Acts xii. 17. It 
is left to others to judge whether or not Belser, Bvzbi. 
Stud., edited by Bardenhewer, 1. 3 (1896), S. 127-139, has 
successfully refuted this thesis. The visit of the prophets 
from Judea, Acts xi. 27; the collection journey, xi. 30; 
Mark’s settlement in Antioch, xii. 25, in the autumn of 44; 
the visit of Peter and of others associated with James, 
Gal. i. 11-14,—constitute a series of events extending 
from about 40 to 45. 

4. Sercius Paulus, THE PRocoNsuL or Cyprus, Acts 
xm. 7-12.—Concerning this, cf. the extended discussion, 
NKZ, 1904, 8. 189-195, which is directed especially 
against Mommsen. Cyprus became a senatorial province 
under Augustus, and remained such from 22 B.c. onwards 
(Dio Cass. liiti, 12. 7, liv. 4. 1). It seems that during 
the great Jewish rebellion under Trajan (Dio Cass. xviii. 
32, and therefore under unusual conditions, Cyprus was 
governed by an imperial Legate, a certain M. Calpurnius 
Rufus, C.I.L. iii. No. 6072, if the latter be identical with 
the person of the same name who previously under Hadrian 
had been proconsul of Achaia (Digest, i. 16. 10.1). The 
governors of Cyprus usually bore the title of proconsul 
before as well as after Trajan’s time. The full name of 
the proconsul (Acts xiii. 7), L. Sergius Paullus, is found 
in all probability in an inscription of the city of Rome 


464 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


according to which he was one of the curatores ryparum 
et alver Tiberis under Claudius (CLL. vi. 31545, ef. 
Prosopographia, ili. 221, No. 376). The year cannot be 
determined ; the only thing that is sure is that L. Sergius 
Paulus later than this was appointed to the much more 
important post on Cyprus. At Soloi on the island of 
Cyprus an inscription has been found, first published 
by Cesnola (Cypern, German transl. by Stern, 8. 379, 
No. 29), and then more carefully edited by Hogarth, 
Devia Cypria (1889), p. 114. This inscription ends with 
the words: tipntevoas tHv Bovdyy |du]a eEaorav (sic) él 
IIavrov [dvOlvrdrov. Hogarth regards the writing as 
wholly that of the first century. This makes it impos- 
sible to doubt the identity of this proconsul of Cyprus 
(the Paulus of the Soloi inscription) with the proconsul 
Sergius Paulus of Acts, and with the Sergius Paullus of 
the Roman inscription. For other than chronological 
reasons alone, the opinion of Mommsen, that the Soloi 
inscription refers to a certain Paullius Fabius Maximus, 
who died 14 B.c., cannot be maintained ; see VKZ, 1904, 
S. 193 ff. Of importance as showing the connection of 
the Sergian gens with Cyprus is another Cyprian inscrip- 
tion found in 1887 (J HS, ix. 241, No. 56: Aov«ov Sépycov 
Ki. . .| “Appiavov cuykrnrtixdv tpiBodvov Sepyia Anuntpia rov 
adehgpov), Moreover, Lightfoot (Hssays on Supernat. Rel. 
p. 295) has shown it to be probable that the Sergius 
Paullus whom Pliny, H. NV. 1, mentions in the list of 
authorities for lib. ii. and xviii. (in the first reference only 
Sergius, not Paullus, see the critical apparatus of Sillig 
or Detlefsen), is the proconsul of Cyprus, and that the 
notes about Cyprus, H. N. i. 210, xviii. 68, were derived 
from him. For other conjectures see Prosopographia, iii. 
222, under Sergius Paullus. The Soloi inscription contains 
a date. A certain Apollonius (if he is to be identified 
with the Apollonius of C.LL.Z. vi. 1440 is questionable) 
set up a monument to his parents on the 25th Dem- 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 465 


archexusios of the year 13. If this date refers to the year 
of the emperor’s reign (cf. C. J. G. 2632, 2634),—in this 
case the emperor Claudius,—then the date is fixed as 53. 
Hogarth’s hypothesis, that the figure P (100) should be 
added,—which gives the number 113, to be reckoned from 
the first organisation of the province, giving us the year 
55,—seems to the present writer hazardous. The con- 
cluding words of the inscription just quoted seem to 
presuppose that the Paulus in whose proconsulship Apol- 
lonius as censor examined the senate of Soloi, was no 
longer in office; that, therefore, Paulus governed Cyprus 
before 53. Now it is true that these two lines and a 
half are written in somewhat different characters, 2.e. are 
a later filling out of Apollonius’ list of offices. But from 
this it does not follow that Apollonius and the proconsul 
Paulus did not hold office until a time subsequent to the 
date of the original inscription. Since whatever Pauline 
chronology is accepted, it is impossible to date Sergius 
Paulus’ proconsulship of Cyprus later than 53, it follows 
that the supplement to the inscription records a distine- 
tion of Apollonius belonging prior to 53, and forgotten 
in the original inscription. But the proconsulship of 
Sergius Paulus must be dated back at least two years. 
According to C. J. G. 2632, the proconsul of Cyprus in 
the twelfth year of Claudius, 2.e. in the year 52, was L. 
Annius Bassus (cf. Plin. Ep. vii. 31), who was not consul 
suffectus until the year 70 (C.LLL. vi. 200). There is 
no need to discuss the question whether he is identical 
with the person mentioned in Tac. Hist. iii. 50, year 69, 
nor the statements of Mommsen concerning him in the 
index to Keil’s Plhinius, p. 401, which to the present 
writer are unintelligible and certainly incorrect, nor the 
statements of Marquardt, Rom. Staatsverwaltung’, i. 391, 
concerning his predecessor, Cordus ; ef., on the other hand, 
the correct statements concerning both in Prosopographia, 
i. 63, 1. 188. Since in C. I. G. 2632, Bassus carries out 
VOL, IIL. 30 


466 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


an order of his predecessor, Cordus, and had, therefore, 
only just begun to govern, Q. Julius Cordus (C. I. G. 
2631; the same person mentioned in Tac. Hist. i. 76 2) 
must have governed the island until the spring of this 
same year, 52. The proconsulship of Sergius Paulus falls 
in the year beginning in the spring of 51, and ending 
in the spring of 52. 

5. Tae EXPULSION OF THE JEWS FROM Roms, AcTS 
xvi. 2.—Dion Cassius (lx. 6. 6) makes the following 
remark in connection with the first year of Claudius, 2.e. 
A.D. 41 (since there is no transition to the year 42 until 
lx. 9. 1, cf. 10. 1): “‘ The Jews, who had again so increased 
in numbers that it would have been difficult to exclude 
them from the city without a riot on the part of their 
rabble (i176 rod éydov opdv), he did not indeed drive out, 
but commanded them, while retaining (otherwise) their 
ancestral customs, not to assemble.” The reference in 
matpios Bios can be to nothing else than that which in the 
edicts of tolerance in Jos. Ant. xix. 5. 2-3 is called ta ta 
20n, ) matpwos Opnokeia, TX TaTpia EO, of iStoe voor, Since 
the observation of the Sabbath and the religious services 
in the synagogue on the Sabbath were a prime feature 
of their ancestral customs, the decree against cvvabpoifer Oar 
cannot refer to the religious services, which in Rome were 
held in a large number of different synagogues (vol. i. 47), 
but is directed against large assemblies and tumultuous 
gatherings of the whole Jewish populace in Rome, which 
were especially pleasing to the Jews (Jos. Bell. ii. 6. 1, 
10. 3; Ant. xvii. 9. 1ff., 11. 1, xviii. 8. 2; Philo, Leg. ad 
Cat. xxxii.), and which would be appropriately designated 
by cuvabpoifec@ar (Acts xix. 25; Jos. Bell. ii. 10. 8) as 
distinguished from ovvdyecOar (cf. cuvayayy, civakis ; Acts 
xix. 39, vvopos éexxrAnoia). With this decree against the 
Jews is to be compared the stricter measures against the 
heterre, which Dio Cassius reports in the passage imme- 
diately following. Thus understood, this account of Dio 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 467 


Cassius agrees well with the fact that Claudius at the 
beginning of his reign showed great favour to the Jewish 
princes, Agrippa 1. and Herod of Chalcis (Jos. Ant. xix. 
5. 1; Dio Cass. lx. 8. 2), and that at their request he 
granted the Jews throughout the whole empire, including 
Italy, the right of religious worship (Ant. xix. 5. 8, of the 
year 42),—the same had been granted earlier to the Alex- 
andrian Jews, Ant. xix. 5. 2,—warning them, however, to 
make modest and peaceful use of it. If this warning were 
not followed, it did not mean a return under Claudius of 
the conditions that prevailed under Caligula, but the en- 
forcement of police regulations against the insubordination 
of troublesome Jews in different places. But it is very 
improbable that the Roman Jews gave occasion for such 
measures so soon after the year 42. The expulsion of 
the Jews from Rome mentioned in Acts xviii. 2 and Suet. 
Claudius, xxv. (vol. i. 433, n. 6), must belong to a later 
date. On the other hand, it is wrong to conclude, with O. 
Holtzmann, Nél. Zertgeschichte, 8. 127, that, from favours 
shown by Claudius to Agrippa 1. between 50 and 54 
(Schiirer, i. 586 f. [Eng. trans. 1 il. 191 f.]), this edict does 
not belong to this, but to an earlier period. This con- 
tinuous patronage of Agrippa does not presuppose general 
love for the Jews on the part of the emperor; neither is 
the fact that in consequence of the repeated tumults among 
the Jews in Rome, the patience of the Roman police was 
finally exhausted, to be taken as evidence of an especially 
unfriendly feeling or attitude of the Emperor toward the 
Jews. The date cannot be fixed more definitely either 
from the “ Teaching of Addai,” ed. Philips, p. 16, or from 
Eus. H. HE. ii. 18. 9, who simply follows Acts, or from 
Orosius, Hist. vii. 6. 15, who declares that he found the 
ninth year of Claudius’ reign mentioned in Josephus, who 
says nothing whatever about it; it must be fixed from 
the chronology of Paul as determined from other data. 

6. GALLIO, PROCONSUL oF ACHAIA, ACTS XVIII. 12-17. 


468 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


—Since the words in xviii. 12, Taddtwvos dé avOurarov dvtos 
tis ’Ayaias, are clearly intended to indicate not the motive 
for the Jews’ charges against Paul, but the time and 
circumstances of them, it is fair to infer that Gallio did 
not assume office until some time during Paul’s eighteen 
months’ sojourn in Corinth, and, since official changes 
were usually made in the spring, not until the spring 
following Paul’s settlement in Corinth. L. Junius 
Gallio (called Anneus Novatus before his adoption by 
the rhetorician Gallio), the elder brother of the philo- 
sopher Seneca, left Achaia on one occasion (according to 
Seneca, Hest. xviii. 1 [105]) in order to get nid of a 
fever which he had contracted there. The sea-voyage here 
referred to cannot be the same as that which took him 
to Egypt (Plin. H. N. xxxi. 62), for the occasion of the 
latter voyage was a hemorrhage. He died in the reign 
of Nero (Dio Cass. Ixii. 25). It is naturally impossible 
to determine the date of his death more definitely from 
Tac. Ann. xv. 73. The date of his consulate is just as 
uncertain (Prosopogr. il. 237) as that of his proconsulate 
in Achaia. Inasmuch as his younger brother Seneca was 
consul in 56, Gallio probably held the office at an earlier 
date. During the exile of his brother, from which the 
latter was recalled in 49 (Seneca, Dial. xii. 18. 2), Gallio 
continued his honourable career undisturbed. Seneca’s 
history, therefore, throws no light upon the dates of his 
brother's career. In addition, the investigations of Ramsay 
(Expos. 1897, March, p. 201 f.), Schiirer (Zf/WTh, 1898, 
S. 41), and of Honnicke (Chronol. des Apostels Pl., 8. 
26 ff.), have led to no sure result. Even if we knew when 
Gallio was adopted, and received this name from his adopted 
father, this information would be of no importance for the 
chronology of Paul; for Luke could have given him this 
name (Acts xviii. 14) without scruple, even if he had not 
yet assumed it at the time of this incident of which he 
writes. 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 469 


7. THE PROCURATORS FEeLIx anp Festus, AoTS XXIII. 
24—xxvi. 32.—Josephus, the only authority in any way 
closely associated with the events in question, in Bell. ii. 
12. 8 mentions the sending of Felix to Palestine as the 
last event of Claudius’ reign (i. 11. 1-12. 8), and places 
everything which he relates concerning Felix’s pro- 
euratorship (il. 13. 2-7, ef. Ant. xx. 8. 4 on the first 
year of Nero) after the accession of Nero (ii. 12. 8). 
The remark in i. 13. 2 concerning Nero, that he gave 
Agrippa Il. some other cities of Palestine in addition to 
the tetrarchy of Philip (ii. 12. 8) which Claudius had 
bestowed upon him, and that he appointed (xatéorncev 
not ¢&émewev) Felix procurator over the rest of Judea, 
can only mean that Nero confirmed Felix in the procu- 
ratorship to which he was appointed by Claudius, except 
that he reduced his jurisdiction in the manner mentioned. 
The date of the transference of office from Felix to Festus 
is not definitely fixed by Bell. i. 14. 1. Practically the 
same situation is found in Ant. xx. 7. 1-8, 9. Here also 
no account of the official acts of Felix is given until the 
reign of Nero (8. 1-8). Only his appointment to Pales- 
tine falls in the reign of Claudius (7. 1). This cannot 
be claimed as certainly regarding his marriage with 
Drusilla (7. 2), the account of which is given merely as 
an episode. Josephus’ idea of the appointment of Felix 
is indicated not only in the distribution of material be- 
tween the reigns of Claudius and of Nero, but also by the 
fact that immediately after mentioning the appointment 
of Felix he reports the assignment to Agrippa of the 
tetrarchy of Philip (7. 1), which took place in the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius’ reign (53). Con- 
sequently there can be no doubt about Josephus’ idea of 
the date of Felix’s procuratorship. Jelix entered office 
in one of the last years of Claudius’ reign (between 51 
and 54), was confirmed by Nero immediately upon his 
accession (October 13th, 54), and was recalled in the same 


470 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


reign. But the greater part of Felix’s term of office, 
which, according to Acts xxiv. 10, 27, must have covered 
at least (4+2) six years, fell in the reign of Nero. EHven 
if only half of the six years belong after the accession of 
Nero (October 54), Felix could, according to Josephus, 
have been withdrawn, at the very earliest, in the autumn 
of 57. The chronology of Josephus is confirmed by 
Tacitus (Ann. xii. 54) to this extent, namely, in that 
Tacitus assigns to the year 52 the sentence of Cumanus, 
which, according to Josephus, was the immediate occasion 
of the appointment of Felix. In another respect Tacitus’ 
statement in this passage has caused confusion. Whereas, 
according to Josephus (Bell. 11. 12. 8; Ant. xx. 7. 1), 
Felix was sent from Rome to Palestine to succeed 
Cumanus, at the request of the high priest Jonathan, 
who was present at Rome at the time of the condemna- 
tion of Cumanus (Ant. xx. 8. 5; Bell. ii. 12. 6), accord- 
ing to Tacitus, Felix had governed Samaria for a long 
time prior to this sentence (jam pridem Judee impositus) 
while Cumanus was governing Galilee. The statement of 
Tacitus is to be rejected, not only because in respect of 
time and place Josephus was much nearer the facts than 
Tacitus, and could not have invented such specific reports 
as those about Jonathan, but also because Tacitus’ alleged 
division of the small province takes no account of the 
most important part of Palestine, namely, Judea and | 
Jerusalem. This is a point on which Tacitus is poorly 
informed. It is more difficult to explain a contradiction 
in which Josephus involves himself notwithstanding his 
otherwise clear statements about Felix. In Ant. xx. 8. 9 
he says that after Festus had been sent by Nero to Pales- 
tine to succeed Felix, the foremost Jews of Ceesarea went 
to Rome in order to accuse Felix, and that he would have 
received the punishment which he deserved for his mis- 
deeds if the emperor had not pardoned many of his 
offences at the intercession of Felix’s brother Pallas, who 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 471 


was at that time greatly esteemed by Nero. Josephus 
evidently knows of the subsequent downfall of Pallas, 
and says with reference to it, that just when (uddora 8} 
vore) Felix had to answer charges in Rome, Pallas was in 
high favour with Nero. But, according to Tacitus (Ann. 
xill. 14), who must have been informed on this point, the 
downfall of Pallas occurred in the year 55 (cf. the state- 
ment concerning the consuls, xii. 11) shortly before 
Britannicus had completed his fourteenth year (xiii. 15). 
But, according to Suet. Claud. xxvii., Britannicus was 
born on the twentieth day of the reign of Claudius during 
his second consulate, 2.e. (reckoning from January 24th, 
41) on the 12th or 13th of February 41, not on the 
12th of February 42, as Schiller states in his Kaisergesch. 
i. 838. Naturally no account need be taken of the 
incidental statement of Dio Cassius, lx. 12. 5, from 
which it might be inferred that Britannicus was born in 
the year 42. Accordingly, Britannicus’ fourteenth birth- 
day fell on the 13th day of February 55, and Pallas was 
deposed in January of the year 55. With this, however, 
agrees Dio Cassius, lxi. 7. 4, where the death of Britan- 
nicus is placed in the year 55. In view of the complete 
agreement of Tacitus, Suetonius, and Dio Cassius regard- 
ing these dates, which are entirely independent of each 
other, referring in part to the birth, in part to the four- 
teenth birthday of Britannicus and his poisoning, which 
took place shortly before his fourteenth birthday,—dates, 
moreover, which are associated with the names of consuls, 
—sguch trivial statements as those of Harnack, Chronol. der 
‘Altchrist. Int. 8. 238, to the effect that Tacitus made a 
mistake of a year in giving the age of Britannicus at the 
time of his death, and consequently put the downfall of 
Pallas in the year 55 instead of 56, the correct date, are 
to be rejected. On the other hand, from the fact that in 
the year 55, when Pallas was charged with high treason, 
he showed a defiant spirit, and was acquitted along with 


472 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


Burrus (Tac. Ann. xiii. 23), it is not to be inferred that 
between 55 and 57 he had gradually or suddenly regained 
the favour of Nero. Nero never showed him any special 
regard (Ann. xiii. 2), and it is certain that from January 
55 until he was poisoned in 62 (Tac. Ann. xiv. 65) he 
was never in favour with the emperor, which would agree 
fairly well with the words of Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 9. How 
O. Holtzmann, Nil. Zertgeschichte, 8. 128-130, infers 
from this statement of Josephus that in the summer of 
55 Felix went to Rome and Festus to Palestine, and 
especially how Harnack, 8S. 235, reaches his conclusion 
that Felix was recalled not later than the year 55 or 56 
(cf. S. 237, Accession of Festus, summer of 56), these 
writers themselves must explain. A glance into older 
works, ¢.g. Wieseler, Chron. des apost. Zeitalters, S. 
72-74, would have prevented such mistakes. According 
to Acts xxiv. 27 (cf. xx. 16, xxvii. 9), Felix departed, and 
Festus assumed office in the summer. Felix’s accusers 
could, therefore, have left Ceesarea immediately after his 
departure and have reached Rome before the close of 
navigation ; but if Josephus is correct in his statement 
about Pallas, they did not arrive in the autumn of the 
year 55, at the beginning of which Pallas was deposed, 
nor in the year 56, 7.e. one year and nine months after 
the fall of Pallas, but must have come at the very latest 
in the autumn of 54. But this, too, is impossible. For 
since Nero did not come to the throne until October 13th, 
54, Festus, who arrived in Palestine in the summer of 
this same year, would not have been sent out by Nero 
but by Claudius, and Felix, who departed in the summer, 
would have found Claudius still alive. Josephus would 
then be entirely wrong in his statement that Nero con- 
firmed Felix in his procuratorshop and appointed Festus 
as his successor, and in his belief that the procuratorship 
of Felix fell largely under Nero. But even if he be cor- 
rect in one point, namely, that Nero sent Festus to Pales- 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 473 


tine, nevertheless his statement about Pallas is untenable. 
It is impossible to crowd the journey of Festus from 
Rome to Palestine, the journey of Felix and the Jewish 
embassy to Rome, and the adjustment of their troubles, 
into the period of time between October 13th, 54, and 
approximately February Ist, 55, to say nothing of the 
fact that such journeys were not usually made in the 
winter months, and that according to the Acts they must 
necessarily have been made in the summer. Josephus’ 
statement about Pallas is, therefore, certainly incorrect. 
But even if this were not as evident as it is, even if we 
had the choice of rejecting ether this incidental account 
of Josephus’ idea of events in distant Rome, or his con- 
sistent conception of the relation of the procuratorships of 
Felix and Festus in Palestine to the administration of 
Claudius and Nero, without question we would hold the 
latter to be historical, and reject the former as an error of 
Josephus’ due to the practical necessity of explaining 
Felix’s escape from punishment, and to a confusion of the 
times of Claudius with those of Nero. Whoever makes 
this error a corner-stone in chronology will certainly 
arrive at conclusions which are absurd—and these con- 
clusions affect more than the history of the Church. Three 
examples will suffice: (1) If Festus succeeded Felix at 
the latest in the year 54,—which, as we have seen, would 
be the case on this supposition,—Paul was arrested at 
Pentecost, 52. On this occasion, fully two years before 
the recall of Felix, the uprising of the Egyptians is 
spoken of as an event not belonging to the immediate 
past (Acts xxl. 38, mpd tovtwv tov ijpepdv, cf v. 36). 
According to Josephus (Bell. ii. 13. 5; Ant. xx. 8. 2), 
however, this uprising occurred during the reign of Nero. 
The arrest of Paul took place, therefore, several years 
after October 54, and the recall of Felix several years after 
56. (2) When, at the beginning of his imprisonment in 
Czesarea, Paul spoke before Felix, the latter was married 


474 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


to Drusilla (Acts xxiv. 24), and there is nothing which im- 
plies that he had been only recently married. Drusilla, 
who in 44 was only six years old (Ant. xix. 9. 1), was only 
fourteen years old in 52. But when Felix induced her to 
infidelity she was married to Azizus of Emesa (Ant. xx. 7. 2), 
and, prior to this first marriage, her brother Agrippa IL. 
had seriously negotiated with Epiphanes of Comagene for 
her marriage to him (xx. 7. 1). Drusilla’s first marriage 
was of short duration (Joc. czt.). In order to compress 
into a period of two years the whole of the first marriage, 
the struggle with the difficulties which Felix had to over- 
come in order to make Drusilla unfaithful to her husband, 
and to induce the Jewess to marry him (Ant. xx. 7. 2), 
and the period during which at the time of Acts xxiv. 24 
Felix and Drusilla had been married, it is necessary to 
assume the most extreme possibilities. Her first marriage 
took place at twelve years, after negotiations concerning 
another marriage, which also required time, had failed. 
This in itself is hardly probable. Moreover, Josephus 
evidently knows when the first marriage took place. At 
the end of the twelfth year of Claudius, z.e. at the begin- 
ning of the thirteenth year of Claudius (= 53), Agrippa m1. 
received the tetrarchy of Philip, and after this elevation in 
rank, 1.e. at the earliest in the year 53, he gave his sister, 
who was then fifteen years of age, in marriage to Azizus 
(Ant. xx. 7. 1). At the very earliest, then, it was not 
until the year 54, probably later, that Drusilla became the 
wife of Felix. This marriage had already taken place 
when Paul spoke before Felix, and the latter retained 
his procuratorship for two whole years thereafter. Con- 
sequently, at the very earliest, Festus succeeded Felix in 
56, probably later. (8) Neither does the “new chrono- 
logy” agree with Josephus’ statements about his first 
journey to Rome (Vit. 3). He was born in the winter of 
37-38 (Schiirer, i. 74 [Hng. trans. 1. i. 77]), and completed 
his twenty-sixth year in the winter of 63-64; so that he 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 475 


started on his journey in the spring of 64. The purpose 
of this journey was the liberation of some Jewish priests 
from imprisonment in Rome, whither Felix had sent them 
during his procuratorship to be condemned by the Imperial 
court. If Felix was removed from office in 54 (55 or 56), 
these priests must have remained prisoners in Rome for at 
least ten (or according to the incorrect reckoning of our 
modern chronologists, at least eight or nine) years. This 
imprisonment was not the result of a judicial sentence, a 
mode of punishment unknown among the Romans, but it 
was an imprisonment pending a trial. ‘The case is con- 
ceivable only if Felix remained in office until the summer 
of 60; so that the imprisonment of these priests until 
they were set free by Josephus may have lasted about 
four years, just as the first Roman imprisonment of Paul 
lasted from two to two and a half years. As regards 
the data of the Eusebian Chronicle (Schoene, ii. 152 ff.), 
(1) due regard is to be paid to the fact that Eus. H. £. ii. 
20. 1, 22. 1, agrees with Josephus as against the Armenian — 
version of the Chronicle in making Felix a procurator 
under Nero,—indeed, he places his procuratorship mainly 
under Nero,—and in making Nero appoint Festus. (2) 
It is not possible, with Blass, Acta apost. p. 22, to 
harmonise the two chronologists, Eusebius and Jerome, on 
the assumption that they differ only by a year. The 
Latin editor places the sending of Felix in Anno Abr. 
2066, the tenth year of Claudius, and the sending of 
Festus in Anno Abr. 2072, the second year of Nero. On 
the other hand, the Armenian version places the sending 
of Felix in Anno Abr. 2067, the eleventh year of Claudius 
(= 51), but puts the sending of Festus in Anno Abr. 
2070, the fourteenth year of Claudius (= 54). That 
the Armenian version is confused, appears also from the 
peculiar fact that Felix’s entrance upon office is not re- 
corded until after a statement is made concerning an 
event which took place under his procuratorship. (3) But 


476 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


even if the dates of the Armenian version are corrected on 
the basis of Jerome’s editing (cf. Vir. Lil. v.), and even if 
we assume with Harnack, S. 234, 236f., that the Eusebian 
dates for the assumption of office by Felix and Festus are 
the summer of 51 and the summer of 56 respectively, and 
that Paul’s first trial before Felix took place at Pentecost 
(Harnack, 8. 237, makes the surprising statement “at 
Easter”) 54, there is still a contradiction to Acts xxiv. 10; 
for Felix had been then only three years in office, a period 
covering less than one-third of the time of Pilate’s pro- 
curatorship. More especially there remains the irrecon- 
cilable contradiction to the course of events in Palestine 
under Claudius and Nero, according to the representation 
of Josephus. Certain dates can be obtained only by 
reckoning back with the help of Josephus from the Jewish 
war. According to the episodic narrative of Bell. vi. 5. 8, 
Albinus, the successor of Festus, was in Jerusalem at a 
feast of Tabernacles, which visit, according to Josephus, 
took place four years before the outbreak of the war, and 
seven years five months prior to a point of time just 
before the capture of Jerusalem. The second date, which 
is more definite, with which, however, the first agrees, 
refers clearly to the feast of Tabernacles in the year 62. 
But now all that is related in Ant. xx. 9. 2-3 (cf. the 
meagre allusions in Bell. i. 14. 1) concerning Albinus’ 
stay in Jerusalem, also took place at a feast of Tabernacles ; 
for, since there is no previous mention of a feast cata rp 
éoptiy, éveatHKes yap airy in xx. 9. 3 is to be understood as 
referring to the feast of Tabernacles (cf. above, p. 285, 
n. 4, on John v. 1, vii. 2). This is a Jewish usage of 
language which is evidently found in Bell. 1. 12. 3; since 
# éopt) in this passage is not the Passover mentioned in 
xii. 1, nor an undetermined feast, in which case there 
would be no article (cf. the importance attached to the 
feast of Tabernacles, Ant. viii. 4. 1). Unless a peculiar 
coincidence be assumed, the feast of Tabernacles, briefly 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY 477 


referred to in Bell. vi. 5. 3, is identical with that spoken 
of in Ant. xx. 9.2. From the context of xx. 9. 1-3 we 
learn that Albinus journeyed to Jerusalem very soon after 
his arrival in the country (cf. a similar case in Acts 
xxv. 1). If he was there at the feast of Tabernacles in 62, 
then he arrived in Palestine late in the summer of 62. 
But from xx. 9. 1 it follows that Festus died in Palestine 
at least three months previous, 7.e. in May or June 62. 
Josephus gives the comparatively just and energetic ad- 
ministration of Festus only two lines in Bell. ii. 14. 1, 
and also describes it very briefly in Ant. xx. 8. 10-11. 
It produced no change in affairs, and must have been of 
short duration. In view of the silence of Josephus, it 
is a bold venture to assume that the procuratorship of 
Festus lasted from 54 to 55 or 56 (see above, p. 472 f.) 
until June 62. On the other hand, the events in Ant. 
xx. 8. 10-11 cannot possibly be crowded into the space of 
time—ten months at the most—between the arrival of 
Festus in the late summer and June of the following year. 
Therefore he cannot have assumed office so late as 61, but 
at the very latest began to rule in the year 60. When in 
Ant. xx. 8. 11 (ef. 11. 2; Veta, 3) Josephus calls Poppea 
the wife of Nero, he is certainly speaking either pro- 
leptically or euphemistically; for the formal marriage 
between the two (Tac. Ann. xiv. 60-64; Suet. Nero, 
xxxy. lvii.) did not take place until after Nero’s separa- 
tion from Octavia and her death (June the 9th, 62), ze. 
about the time of the death of Festus, whereas Ant. xx. 
8. 11 refers to a period prior to his death. Moreover, the 
original reading in Acts xxviii. 16 (vol. i, 551f.) pre- 
supposes that at the time of Paul’s arrival in Rome there 
was only one Prafectus pratorio. That was the case 
until the death of Burrus, which, as the context of the 
narratives shows (Tac. Ann. xiv. 51; Dio Cassius, lxii. 13), 
occurred in the beginning of the year 62. After his death 
this office was shared by two persons. If Paul had 


478 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


arrived in Rome in March 62, he would have found this 
new arrangement in operation. Therefore he probably 
arrived in Rome at the latest in the spring of 61, and 
accordingly Festus assumed office as procurator at the 
latest in the summer of 60. But this latest possible date 
for his assumption of office has every claim to be the 
correct one. As has been shown, a date much earlier is 
impossible, while there can be no serious objection to 
taking the year 59 as the date of the change of office from 
Felix to Festus. In view of Acts xxiv. 10 and the re- 
presentation of the rule of Festus in Josephus, there is 
little to recommend in deducting a year from Felix’s 
procuratorship and adding it to Festus’. Then there is 
also to be considered the significant coincidence, shown 
above, p. 462, between 2 Cor. xii. 2 and the date in Acts 
xi. 25, which can be absolutely fixed. By referring the 
relative dates back a year, this very likely combination 
would be rendered impossible. 

8. Taking the fixed date—the death of Agrippa Tf. in 
the summer of 44—and a date almost as certain, namely, 
Festus’ entrance upon office in the summer of 60, the 
Pauline chronology can be arranged plausibly without any 
conflict with established dates. It requires no change in 
the traditional dates, but only the proof that Josephus 
and Tacitus each in one instance gave an inaccurate report 
of matters with which they were imperfectly acquainted. 
The excess of between five and six years, concerning 
which we have no information, causes no difficulty. The 
question, whether these years should be inserted between 
Acts xii. and xi, or between Acts xiv. and xv. 1, or 
between Acts xv. 33 and xv. 40, is not difficult to answer. 
The apostolic council took place soon after the first mis- 
sionary journey. ‘The language in xiv. 28 may apply toa 
period of months, but not to five or six years. Paul and 
Barnabas brought to Jerusalem the fresh reports of the 
first missionary journey (xv. 3, 4,12). In xv. 35 mention 


CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY ~ 479 


is made of the resumption of teaching in the Church at 
Antioch and of missionary preaching in the same city, but 
the close connection between xv. 40 and xv. 30-34, and 
between xvi. 4 and xv. 29, makes it impossible to assume 
an interval of more than weeks or months. Evidence is 
also found in Phil. iv. 15 (é apy tod edayyediov) for the 
statement that only a short space of time intervened 
between the first and second missionary journeys. But, 
on the other hand, in xiii. 1 we have the beginning of an 
entirely new historical narrative. Nothing suggests that 
Paul and Barnabas took Mark with them to Antioch 
with a view to making him their companion on a more 
extensive missionary journey (xi. 25). But Mark settled 
in Antioch, where we meet him again in xv. 37. Only 
in a passing moment of discouragement did he go back 
to Jerusalem to his mother (xii. 13). In view of what 
has just been stated, room for the insertion of a five- 
year period of the preparation of the apostle to the 
Gentiles for the calling which had been placed before 
him, is to be found only between Acts xi. and xiii. 
If Luke had written a third book, we would prob- 
ably know much of the history of the older apostles 
during the years 44-50, which he dismisses with Acts 
Xiii. 1 (above, p. 59 f.). During this period no important 
steps were taken affecting missionary work among the 
Gentiles. 

9, THE DEATH OF PETER AND PavuL UNDER Nero.—In 
view of the investigations in vol. un. 54-84, 158-194, it 
may be assumed as certain that both apostles died as 
martyrs in Rome in the reign of Nero, and also that Paul 
died considerably later than Peter. The parts of 2 Tim. 
which it would have been most impossible to invent, 
prove that the last imprisonment and the death of Paul 
were not part of the persecution of the Christians in 64. 
Paul’s silence regarding Peter in all his imprisonment 
letters, and Peter’s silence concerning Paulin 1 Pet., prove 


480 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT 


that their ways parted at the end. The clearest traces of 
the true course of events are preserved in the tradition of 
Clement of Rome up to and beyond the Chronicle of 
Eusebius. Harnack’s assertion, Chronol. der altchristl. 
Int. 8. 239, 240, that Paul was certainly executed in the 
year 64, is as incorrect as it is bold. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Deposition of Pilate and of Caiaphas, 
36. 

Death of Tiberius, March 16, 37. 
Reign of Caius Cesar (Caligula) 
March 16, 37, to January 24, 41. 

Birth of Nero and of Josephus, 37. 

Herod Agrippa I., 37-44. 

Persecution of the Jews in Alexandria, 
38. 


Attempts of Caligula to erect his 
statue in the temple, 39-40. 


Reign of the Emperor Claudius, Jan. 
24, 41, to October 18, 54. 


Death of Herod Agrippa I., summer 
of 44. 
Fadus’ procuratorship, 44-46 (or 47). 


VOL, III. 


CHRISTIAN. 


Death and Resurrection of Christ, 
probably 30. 

The events in Acts i.-viii. 1, from 30 
to 34. 

The Conversion of Paul, beginning 
of 35. 


Three years’ sojourn of Paul in 
Damascus, once interrupted by a 
journey to Arabia (Gal. i. 17). 


Flight from Damascus, first visit to 
Jerusalem, settlement in Tarsus 
(Gal. i. 18-24; 2 Cor. xi. 32; Acts 
ix. 23-30, xxii. 17-21, xxvi. 20; 
Rom. xv. 19), 38. 

Peter in Joppa and Ceesarea (Acts ix. 
32=x1.0 18; Xv. 7). 

Agabus and the other prophets in 
Antioch (Acts xi. 27f.), about 40. 
Luke a member of the Antiochian 

Church. 


Paul brought by Barnabas from 
Tarsus to Antioch (Acts xi. 25; 
2 Cor. xii. 2), summer or autumn, 
43. 

Execution of James the gon of 
Zebedee, imprisonment of Peter, 
flight of Peter from Jerusalem, 
about Easter, 44. 


Journey of Barnabas and of Paul to 
Jerusalem with the collection, and 
the settlement of Mark in Antioch 
(Acts xi, 30, xii, 25), autumn of 44, 


bt 


482 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, 
46 (or 47)-48. 

Famine in Judea. 

Procuratorship of Cumanus, 48-52. 


Sergius Paulus, governor of Cyprus, 
about 50 (certainly not between 51 
and 53). 

Banishment of Jews from Rome, 
about 52. 

Procuratorship of Felix, from 52, or 
beginning 53, until summer, 60. 


Gallio, proconsul of Achaia, probably 
from the spring of 53 on. 


Reign of Nero, from Oct. 13, 54, to 
June 9, 68. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


CHRISTIAN. 


Paul and Barnabas, active as teachers 
and missionaries in Antioch until 
the spring of 50. 

The visit of Peter and of other Jews 
in Antioch. 

The Epistle of James, about 50. 

First missionary journey of Paul (Acts 
xiii, 4-xiv. 27; Gal. iv. 13), spring 
of 50 until autumn of 51. 

The apostolic council (Acts xv. 1-29; 
Gal. ii. 1-10), beginning of 52. 

Beginning of the second missionary 
journey (Acts xv. 40), spring of 52. 

Arrival, in Corinth, about November 
52. 

The Epistle to the Galatians, about 
April 53. 

Arrival of Silas and Timothy in 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 5; 1 Thess. iii. 6), 

First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
about May or June 53.- 

Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, 
August or September 53. 

Hearing before Gallio (Acts xviii. 
12-17), autumn of 53. 

Journey from Corinth to Ephesus 
(Acts xviii. 18-21. Beginning of the 
three years’ stay in Ephesus, Acts 
xx. 31, cf. xix. 8-10, xx. 18), before 
Pentecest, z.e. about May 54. 

Continuation of the journey to 
Cesarea (not to Jerusalem) and 
Antioch (Acts xviii. 21 f.). 

Journey of Apollos from Alexandria 
by way of Ephesus to Corinth (Acts 
XVili. 24-28), summer, 54. 

Beginning of the third missionary 
journey from Antioch to Ephesus 
(Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1), probably in 
the late summer of 54, 

Settlement in Ephesus, somewhere 
about February 55. 

Transfer to the lecture-room of Tyran- 
nus, about Pentecost, 55. 

Short visit in Corinth from Ephesus 
(vol. 1. 263 f.). 

A lost letter of Paul to the Corinth- 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 483 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. CHRISTIAN. 


ians (1 Cor. v. 9), toward the end of 
56 or beginning of 57. 

Sending of Timothy and Erastus to 
Macedonia, and thence to Corinth 
(Acts xix. 22; 1 Cor. iv. 17). 

= Letter of the Corinthians to Paul 
(1 Cor. vii. 1). 

The First Epistle to the Corinthians 
(1 Cor. v. 7, xvi. 8), about Easter, 
57. 

Return of Timothy to Ephesus. Send- 
ing of Titus to Corinth (vol. i. 
321 ff.). 

The uprising of Demetrius (Acts xix. 
23-41). 

Departure of Paul and Timothy from 
Ephesus to Macedonia by way of 
Troas (Acts xx.) 13: ciw2) Corminis: 
li. 12, vii. 5), at or shortly after 
Pentecost, 57. 

Meeting of Titus and Paul in Mace- 
donia (2 Cor. vii. 5-15). 

Second Epistle to the Corinthians, ° 
about November or December 57. 
Journey of Paul from Macedonia to 
Corinth (Acts xx. 2), at New Year, 

58. 

The Epistle to the Romans written 
during the three months’ stay in 
Greece and Corinth (Acts xx. 3; 
Rom. xv. 25, xvi. 1), about Feb- 
ruary 58. 

Journey by way of Macedonia (Easter 
in Philippi, Acts xx. 6), Troas, 
Miletus, etc., to Jerusalem. 

Arrival in Jerusalem, and beginning 
of the Cesarean imprisonment, 
Pentecost, 58. 

Porcius Festus, procurator from sum- 


mer 60 to early summer 62. 
Defence before Festus, late summer 


of 60. 
Departure from Cesarea for Rome 
(Acts xxvii. 1, 9), September 60. 
Arrival at Rome (Acts xviii. 16; cf. 
ver. 11), March 61. 

Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, 
and Philemon, summer, 62. 

Second Epistle of Peter, in 62. 

Matthew writes his Aramaic Gospel 
in Palestine, in 62. 


484 


ROMAN AND JEWISH. 


Burning of Rome (vol. ii. 68), from the 
19th to the 24th of July 64. 


Beginning of the Jewish War, 66. 


Victory of the Jews over Cestius, 
November 66. 


War in Galilee, 67. 


Civil war in Jerusalem, winter 67-68. 


Death of Emperor Nero, June 9, 
68. 

Death of Galba, January 15, 69; of 
Otho, April 16, 69; of Vitellius, 
December 21, 69. 

Vespasian proclaimed emperor in 
Alexandria, July 1, 69. 

Beginning of the siege of Jerusalem 
by Titus, April 70. 

Capture of Jerusalem and destruction 
of the temple, August 70. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


CHRISTIAN. 


End of the two whole years (cf. Acts 
XXvili. 30), about April 63. 

The Epistle to the Philippians, sum- 
mer of 63. 

Release of Paul, late in the summer of 
63. 

Journey of Paul to Spain, autumn of 
63 or spring of 64. 

Arrival of Peter in Rome, in the 
autumn of 63 or spring of 64. 

First Epistle of Peter, spring of 64. 

Mark engaged in Rome in the pre- 
paration of his Gospel, summer of 
64. 

Persecution under Nero and cruci- 
fixion of Peter, autumn of 64. 

Return of Paul from Spain, tour of 
the Eastern Churches, composition 
of 1 Timothy and of Titus, spring 
and autumn of 65. 

Stay in Nicopolis during the winter 
of 65-66. 

Death of James the brother of Jesus, 
in Jerusalem, at Easter, 66. 

Return of Paul to Rome, spring of 
66. 

Paul’s arrest in Rome, composition of 
2 Timothy, summer of 66. 


Paul beheaded, at the end of 66 or 
beginning of 67. 

Publication of the Gospel of Mark, in 
67. 

Flight of the Christians from Jeru- 
salem to Pella, 67. 

Settlement of the apostle John and 
other disciples (Philip, Aristion, 
and others) in the province of Asia, 
68. 


CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE 


RoMAN AND JEWISH. 


Reign of Titus, from June 23, 79, 
until September 13, 81. 

Reign of the Emperor Domitian, Sep- 
tember 13, 81, to September 18, 96. 

Reign of the Emperor Nerva, from the 
18th of September 96 until the 15th 
of January 98. 

Reign of the Emperor Trajan, from the 
25th of January 98 until August 117. 


485 
CHRISTIAN. 


Epistle of Jude, about 75. 

Gospel and Acts of the Apostles by 
Luke, about 75. 

Epistle to the Hebrews, about 80. 

The Gospel and Epistles of John, 
80-90. 

Appearance of the Greek Matthew, 
about 85. 

Revelation of John, about 95. 


Death of John, about 100. 


GENERAL INDEX. 


a 


Dba, i. 48 £. 
\bilius, second Bishop of Alexandria, 
iii. 8,. 
\chaia, i. 185 f.,, 256, 266,; iii. 467 f. 
\chaicus, i. 260, 269,. 
\cta Pauli, i. 2705. 
see also Acts of Paul. 
\cta Thecla, ii. 21,3. 
see also Acts of Thecla. 
\cts of the Apostles— 
see also Luke, Writings of. 
Accounts of Journeys, iii. 115 ff. 
Agreement with Pauline Epistles, 
ili. 150f. 
Alleged Hebrew (Aramaic) original, 
iii, 14147. 
Author, ili. 54 ff., 125 f. 
Author, relation to events recorded, 
iii. 114 ff. 
Authorship ascribed to Luke by 
early Church, iii. 1, 3). 
Chronological order lacking, ii. 67 f. 
Date, iii. 29,, 125 f. 
Dedication, ili. 43, 54. 
Discourses of Peter in, compared 
with 1 Pet., ii. 173 f., 1865. 
Hebraisms in i.-xii., iii. 129, 140 f.gg. 
Heb. translation, ii. 519 f. 
Historicity, iii. 162 f.,. 
Names of Roman provinces in, i.186 ff. 
Purpose, iii. 79 f., 93go. 
view of Baur, iii. 79 f., 939. 
Relation to Pauline Epistles, iii. 
118-126, 139 fs, 93: 
Sources of, iii. 114 ff. 
bibliography, iii. 127 f., 141 fog. 
Text of— 
recension a,editio Antiochena, iii.9 ff. 
recension B, editio Romana, iii. 9 ff. 
recension 8, sources of, ili. 25 ff... 
two-fold recension of, iii. 8-41. 
bibliography, iii. 25). 
theory of Fr. Blass, iii. 8 f. 


Acts of the Apostles—continwed. 
Title, iii. 3,, 59, 87,,. 
“We” passages, ii. 14; iii. 54 ff, 
86 (cf. 8733), 115 f. 
author, 111. 142-145, 159f.,, 5. 
Acts of John, iii. 88,7, 197, 206s. 
Date, iii. 179, 197,. 
Acts of John and of Peter, iii. 177. 
on John xxi. 24f., iii. 250). 
Acts of Paul, i. 2709, 451,, 455, ; ii. 
20, 3 iii. 88,7. 
Coptic fragments bearing on im- 
prisonment of Paul, ii. 83 f.,. 
Testimony of, to Journey of Paul to 
Spain, ii. 63. 
Acts of Peter, ii. 168f.,, 451.5; iil. 


88,7. 
Acts of Philip, ii. 163,. 
Acts of Pilate, ili. 352 f.49. 
Acts of Thecla, li. 215; ili. 88,7. 
Addai— 
Missionary work of, ii. 1645. 
Teaching of, see Teaching of Addai. 
Address, Christian— 
Forms of, ili. 81 f.5. 
Adjectives, ending in avos, avus, tavds, 
ii. 1937. 
Ado, ili. 263, 31g. 
Aisculapius— 
Cult of, iii. 411f., 421,. 
Africanus, Epistle of, to Aristides— 
on Luke, ii. 5,. 
Agabus, iii. 127, 131,. 
Prophecy of, date, i. 
458 ff. 
Agape, ii. 211,, 229, 235 f.,. 
Ignatius on the, 11, 2363. 
Agrippa I.,1. 55393 11.180,9 ; iil. 75, 467. 
Death, iii. 133,. 
date, iii. 455 ff. 
Persecutes Christians, iii. 457, 459. 
Agrippa IL, ii. 1309; ili. 76, 467, 474, 
Akeldama, meaning, i. 28),. 


2283 iil. 


488 


Albinus, iii. 476. 
Alexander, Cypriote Monk, i. 433, ; 11. 
447 


6° 
Alexander (in Acts and 1 and 2 Tim.), 
ii. 42,, 86. 
Alexander (in Pastoral Epistles), ii. 


8f. 
Alexander (the coppersmith), ii. 16f., 
lf 


g *3° 

Alexander (son of Simon), ii. 489f., 
504;. 

Alexander Ja annus, i. 25g, 37, 59¢. 

Coins of, i. 25s. 

Alexandria, Church in— 
Founder, ii. 159. 
Origin, 11. 3574. 
Alexandrians, Epistle to the, i. 160; 
li. 295, 306. 
Aloes, iii. 1965. 
Alogi— 
Estimate of Johannine Writings, iii. 
177 £., 181, 200). 

on Cerinthus, i. 5154. 

on Gospel of John, ii. 389. 
Alpheus (father of Levi), ii, 507, 

«le 
** Amen, the,” iii. 316, 329 f.,. 
Ammonius— 

Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 420,. 
Ampliatus, 1. 393, 41994; il. 21). 
Anagnost, li. 374. 

Andreas Cretensis, on James, i. 108,. 
Andrew, the Apostle, i. 41. 

Greek name, 1. 631. 

in Asia Minor, iii. 3703. 

in John, iii. 179, 209f., 213, 224,. 
Andronicus, i. 391, 41893. 

Angelolatry, i. 475-479¢.3. 

Among Jews, 1. 475 f.,. 

Views of fathers, 1. 4768. 26 
Angels (of the Churches) — 

Meaning of term, iii. 413-417, 422 f.,. 

View of Origen, lil. 413 f. 

Annas, iii. 270f., 292 f.., 
Annianus, first Bishop of Alexandria, 
iii. 8. 
Antichrist, i. 227 ff., 236 ff.4-9. 
in ee pistle of John, iii. 3641., 
371 


Be 
in Revelation, i11. 399 f., 438 f., 441 f., 
4 


2° 
number of, i. 288f.); iii. 444 ff., 
447 ff.4 
in teaching of J ohn, i. 228. 
in. teaching of Paul, i. 239 f.9, 251,. 
Antioch, Church of— 
Gentile Character of, ii. 344, 


INDEX 


Antioch in Pisidia, i. 191 f., 
Antiochus Epiphanes, i. 36, 2314, 239 f.9, 


Antipas, ili. 4108, 421 f.5. 
anus, adjective ending, i ii. 193. 
Apamea, i. 448 fi... 
Apocalyptic Literature, iii. 387 f., 4033. 
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, de- 
pendent on Canonical Acts, 
li. 61, 887. 
Apocryphal Gospels — 
Gospel of Etchmiadzin, ii, 4853. 
Gospel of the Ebionites, ili. 38j9. 
Gospel of the Hebrews, i, 109, 5 1 
518 ff., 529,, 562, 573, 59419, 
59611, 59719. 
Date, i. 13. 
Language, i. 13. 
on James, lil. 22745 
Relation to the Heb. Matthew, ii. 
518 f. 
View of Baur, ii. 418. 
Witness to John vii. 53-viii. 1, iii. 
3465. 
Gospel of Matthias, 11. 524s. 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, ii. 403, 
518f. 
Relation to the Greek Matthew, ii. 
519. 
Gospel of Peter— 
Date, ii. 456; 5. 
on Pilate, iil. 352 fio. 
‘Relation to Mark, ii. 483;. 
Gospel of Philip, ili. 92.,. 
Apollos, ii, 49f., 87; ili, 824, 123. 
Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 356, 
364 f.45 
and Corinthian parties, i. 
285 ff. 
Christian belief of, ii. 356, 3574. 
in Corinth, i, 262, 270f.,,. 
in Ephesus, i. 262 f.; lil, 3312.49. 
Name, i. 2700. 
Apollos Party, i 1. 27143. 
Apostle, Apostleship, i, 354, 371 fis, 
586,; li. 389, 463f.; iii, 49, 
226 f.9, 429 f. 
Title, i. 107, 210,; ii, 1478, 206, 
22049, 386 £. 
Use of term by Paul, i. 2103, 506 f. 
Apostles— 
Forged letters of, 1. 242 f., 247), 270g. 
in Asia Minor, iii, 1912, 194f.5, 


283 f, 


2045 
Apostles, and. Apostolic Letters— 
Interest of Post-apostolic Churches 
in, i, 162, 164g. 


INDEX 


Apostolate, ili. 78 f. 

Apostolic Council and Decree, i. 146, 
168, 179, 266; ii. 161, 208; 
10H, 27,, 33 fers; 124, 
153 ff., 163,9, 4 

Apostolic Decree— 

Biblography, ii. 35;9. 
Style, compared with Luke’s style, 
ili. 100, 134. 
Apphia, i. 447,, 452, 458. 
Aquila, the translator, 1. 56, 629; ii. 
y 563., 575. 
Translation approved, i. 625. 
Aquila and Priscilla— 
Authors of Hebrews, ii, 365 f.,5. 
in Corinth, i. 257, 2655. 
in Ephesus, i 262, 2664, 389, 4175), 
483. 
in Pontus, li. 152,. 
in Rome, i. 417,;, 429, ; i. 19, 350. 
Church in the house of, ii. 350. 
Arabia, i. 1864. 
Bartholomew in, ii. 385;. 
Gospel of Matthew in, il. 385,. 

Aramaic— 

Biblical =Syriac, i. 22 fy. 

Dialects, 1. 8 ff. 

Dialects of non-Jews, i. 2814. 

Forms in LXX, i. 18, 67,5. 

Idioms and Terms in the Gospels, 
ii, 573 f., 576 ff., 591-597;.3;. 

in Rabbinic Circles, i. 33;9. 

In Seleucidan Empire, i, 34. 
Language used by Jesus and Dis- 
ciples, i. § 1; ii. 573f. 
Language used by Paul, i. 11, 48 ff., 

57. 


Language used in Synagogue services, 
Ber Eis 


Names for places in and near 
Jerusalem, i. 28,5 
Original aca of “the gospel,” 
i. § 1 


Grau language of Matthew, ii. 


) 9° 
Words in Synoptic Gospels, i. 2 ff. ; 
ii. 487 £., 502,. 
in John, iii. 3823 f., 353). 
in Luke, iii. 135 f.45, 137)4. 
in Mark, 11. 610, 616,. 
in Matthew, ii. 576f., 610, 616;. 
in. Revelation, iii. 444 f. 
Archippus, i. 446f., 452, 458,, 459s. 
Aretous, ili. 160 f.5. 
Aretas, i. 5; il. 130 9. 
Date of aii. iii. 455. 
Aretas IV., 1, 55 li. 180,93 iii, 455. 


489 
Aristarchus, i. 209,, 2134, 320,, 440, 
4514. 

Aristion, ii. 437 £. » 45245. 

(Ariston), relation to Mark xvi. 14- 
18, ii. 473 f., 485 fg. 
in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 370. 

Aristobulus, i. 392 f., 41994. 

Arsinoé, li. 3574. 

Artemas, ii. 48. 

Ascetic Party i in Rome, i. 365 f., 376 £.49, 

406 f.493 ii. 346 £,, 490. 

Asceticism— 

Among readers of Hebrews, ii. 331 ff. 
in Colossz, i. 465 ff., 473-4794.9. 
View of Paul, ii. 332. 

Asia, Province, i. 186,, 1894. 
Beginnings of Church in, ii. 188. 
Churches founded by Paul inal. 

135 f. 
Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. 
Jews in, i. 449». 
Paul’s work in, i. 259. 

Asia, Seven Churches of, iii. 390. 

Asia Minor, i. 47. 

Christian Church in, before Paul, 
ii, 137 f. 
Churches founded by Paul in, ii. 
135 f. 
Churches of, Character of, ii. 136. 
Paul’s journeys through— 
Ramsay’s view, i. 188 ff.,. 
Asia Minor, Churches of— 
Condition of, according to Rev. i.-iii., 
lii. 408-427. 
Founded by Paul, iii. 412 f., 422,. 
Intercourse of Paul with, during the 
Roman imprisonment, ii. 16 f. 
Internal condition about 90-100 a.p., 
ili. 409 ff. 
Organisation, ii. 93. 
Persecution of, iii. 409 ff. 
Relation to Church in Rome, ii. 
148 f. 
Relation to Mark, ii. 148f. 
Relation to Paul, ii. 148 f. 
Relation to Silvanus, ii. 148 ff. 
Teaching of Nicolaitans in, ii. 
292 5. 
Author’s reference to himself in his 
work, iii. 226,. 
Azyma, Feast of, lii. 296 f.47. 


Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13)— 
= Babylon in Egypt, ii. 159, 1625. 
= Babylon on Euphrates, 1. 159, 
162 f.g. 
= Rome, ii. 159f., 163 ff.g.4. 


490 


Babylon (1 Pet. v. 13)—continued. 
Interpretation of Barhebreus, ii. 
164f. 
Interpretation of Papias, ii. 1633. 
Babylon (Rev. xvii. 5, ete.)— 
Interpretation of, il. 165 f.4. 
= Rome, ii. 165 ff.4. 
Babylon— 
in Revelation, iii. 400, 442, 446,. 
Meaning of name in 1 Peter, ii. 158 ff., 
162-173p.4. 
Origin of use of name for Rome, 
ii. 178, 188 f.,. 
Babylon, Church in, il. 
162-173,,4. 
Balaam, ii. 233. 
Compared with Nicolaiis, iii. 419, 
in Jude, ii. 246 f. 
in 2 Peter and Jude, ii. 282f., 291,, 
in Revelation, li. 283. 
the way of (2 Pet. ii. 14), il. 225, 
235, 
Baptismal Formula, ii. 591,. 
in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 119, 1314). 
Barabbas, ii. 555, 569;). 
Name, 1. 30;.. 
Barnabas, i. 207,, 442, 450, ; li. 527,. 
Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 302 f., 
303, 308;, 31019, 3, 354-356, 
Biographical notes on, ii. 354 f. 
Collection journey, Acts xi. 30, iii. 
456 ff. 


148, 158 ff, 


Cousin of Mark, i. 442 ; ii. 428. 
in Galatia with Paul, i. 178 ff. 
in Rome, 1. 433;. 
Name, i. 314. 
Surname of Joseph of Cyprus, i. 12. 
Barnabas, Epistle of, ii. 302, 310,); iii. 
183 


Matt. use of, in the, ii. 515, 526f.,. 
Bartholomew— 
brought Gospel of Matthew into 
India, li. 385,. 
see also Nathanael. 
Bartimeus (Bar-Timai), i. 31,4. 
Basilides, ii. 455f.,;. 
Teaching, iil. 3749. 
Berea, Church of— 
Character, ii. 344. 
Bethany, iii. 261 f. 
Bethesda, Bndeodae— 
Meaning, i. 28),. 
Bible, Jewish term for, 1i. 277. 
Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 f.4, 124. 
Qualifications, 11. 32f., 90 ff. 


INDEX 


Bithynia, i. 1853, 188, ; ii, 151, ; ili. 7,. 
Churches in, Character of, ii. 136 f. 
Bethusians, Family of, i. 625. 
Books— 
Reading of, in antiquity, i. 373f., 
385.. 
Britannicus, 111. 471. 


Ceesarea, 1. 38, 585, 629, 443, 451g. 
Garrison in, i. 60,. 
Jews in, i. 451g. 
Paul in, i. 451;. 
Caiaphas, iii. 270f., 292 f.,, 3525. 
Cain, Comparison with, in Jude, 11.257;. 
Caius of Rome, ii. 825. 
Dialogue with Proclus, ii. 311,). 
on Johannine writings, i. 181, 
20013. 
Calendar— 
Athenian, i. 319,. 
Jewish civil, i. 319;. 
Jewish ecclesiastical, i, 319;. 
Macedonian, i. 319;. 
Olympian, i. 319;. 
Caligula, i. 228. 
Antichrist, vl 2353, 239o. 
Decrees of, relating to Jews, i. 237,. 
References to, in Rev., iii. 445, 449,. 
Canon Muratori— 
Dependence on Acts of Peter, and 
Acts of John, ii. 62f., 78 ff.,. 
on-origin of John, ili. 178 f., 197,. 
Canon, N.T.— 
Composition of, i. 124. 
Capitulatio Amiatina, i. 398 f.4. 
Cappadocia— 
Churches in, Character of, ii. 136, 
Carpocrates— 
Teachings of, ii. 292 f.,;. 
Carpocratians, li, 129,7, 292),. 
Carpus, ii. 16. 
Catholic Epistles, Canonicity, i. 123. 
Celsus— 
on angelolatry of Jews, i. 475,. 
Polemic against Christianity, ii. 
5635. 
Cephas, ii. 206. 
see also Peter. 
a, other than Peter, ii. 155,. 
Cerinthus, i. 497, 515,; ii. 116; iii. 
181. 
Alleged author of Fourth Gospel, 
Mi GOO: dale Lies 
Alleged author of Johannine writ- 
ings, iii, 184, 200,. 
Relations with John, iii. 20454. 
School of, ii, 444, 456,,. 


INDEX 


Cerinthus—continued. 
Teaching, i. 5154; iii. 374). 
Contested in 1 John, iii. 365f., 
373s. 
Chagigah, the, iii. 283, 298,;. 
Christ— 
see Jesus Christ. 
Christian Address— 
Forms of, iii. 81 f.s. 
Christian Church, see Church, Chris- 
tian. 
Christian Life and Worship, ii. 326 ff. 
Christian Literature, Harly— 
Character of, ii. 367 f. 
Christian Literature of 60-64, ii. 278. 
Christian Preaching in Synagogues, 
i. 995. 
Christianity— 
Attempts of Roman government to 
suppress, li. 178 f., 189,. 
Relation to the State— 
in Luke’s writings, iii. 74 ff. 
Situation of, in the world, from 
Paul’s Epistles, ii. 179 ff. 
Situation of, in the world, from 
1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 189- 1945. “10° 
Christians— 
Conditions under Nero and Domitian, 
li. 177-185, 189-191 ; ini. 412, 
4224, 
Friction between Jewish and Gentile, 
i, 147). 
Jewish, in Jerusalem— 
Attitude toward temple worship, 
li. 333. 
Jewish, in Palestine— 
Attitude toward the law, ii. 334. 
Origin of term, i. 213; ii. 185, 
191 ff.1, 
Persecution of, under Nero, ii. 185. 
Relation of, to the State, in 1 Peter, 
ii. 181 f. 
Christians, Persecutions of— 
Nature of, in first century, ii. 180f., 


mentioned in1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. 
Chronological Survey, 111. 450-480. 
Chronological Table, 111. 481-485. 
Church, Christian— 

Conception of, in Matthew’s Gospel, 

li. 550 ff. 
Condition after 60 a.D., ii. 200, 241, 
286, 293. 

in Asia Minor before Paul, ii. 137 £ 

in Jerusalem, i. 138. 

Relation to the Jewish People in 

Matthew, ii. 550 ff. 


491 


Church, Christian, Early— 
Deaconesses in, ii, 94f. 
in Jerusalem and Palestine— 
Greek in, i. 43 ff., 112. 
Hellenists in, i. 43 ff. 
Membership of, i. 43-46, 
Instruction, relation of, to the words 
of Christ, ii. 370f. 
Marriage in, ii. 95. 
Patristic and modern views of, 
OLD others 
Offices in, ii. 32f., 89-99. 
Bishop, ii. 32, 90 ff., 123 f.,, 124. 
Deacon, ii. 91f., 123 f.,. 
Elder (presbyter), ii. 
91 ff., 124 
Officers in, functions, ii. 96 ff. 
Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. 
Oral translation in, ii. 511 ff. 
Persecution of, A.D. 35, 1. 93. 
Prophecy, ii. 97 f., 110 ff., 230, 236, ; 
iil. 16f., 385 ff, 402 f.». 
Services open to outsiders, i. 99. 
Teaching, i. 96f. 
Compensation for, ii, 127f.3. 
Widows, ii. 94f. 
Worship, li. 514. 
Church, Idea of— 
in Paul’s Epistles, i. 503 f. 
Church, the Palestinian— 
Leaders in, iii. 188 f. 
Church Services— 
Gospels read in the, ii. 386. 
Churches— 
in Asia Minor, organisation of, ii 
93. 
Cilicia— 
Churches in, ii. 134. 
Claudia, ii. 20 f.». 
Claudius, Emperor, i. 228; 1. 168f.,; 
ili. 469 ff. 
and the Jews, ii. 348. 
Edict of, i. 427, 483 f.. 
Expels Jews from Rome, iii. 466 f. 
Return from Britain, iti. 456, 459 f. 
Claudius Lysias, see Lysias. 
Clement, Epistle of, to James, i. 108; ; 
ii. 1714, 289s. 
Clement of Alexandria— 
on Jaines (first Bishop of Jerusalem), 
i. 103. 
on Mark’s Gospel, ii. 432 f. 
on origin of John, ili. 178, 197;. 
Clement of Philippi, i. 580, 534,, 537,, 
559, 561g. 
Clement of Rome— 
on Hebrews, ii. 299, 309;. 


2350 Soi 


492 


Clement of Rome—continued. 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, ii. 
264. 
Confirming further activity of 
Paul, 1i. 60 ff., 68 ff. 
Date, ii. 60. 
on parties in Corinthian Church, 
i, 2985, 342. 
Relation to Epistle to the Hebrews, 
ii. 346, 358 f.,. 
Relation to the Epistle of James, 
1-134 6.4) 
Testimony to martyrdom of Peter 
and Paul, ii. 61 f. 
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 
ii. 264, 311 f.49. 
Echoes of James in, i. 135,. 
Clementine Romance (Homilies and 
Recog.). 
Ebionism of, i. 148,. 
on Barnabas, i. 433,. 
on James, i. 108;, 136.. 
on Peter, ii. 170 ff.4; i. 270, 289, ; 
iii. 5 f.,. 
Codex— 
Origin of, ii. 393, 398,. 
Collection, the Great, WoL as 
Colosse, 1. 4477 ff.. 
Church of, ii. 138. 
False teachers in, i. 463 ff, 4787, g. 
False teaching concerning Christ 
in, i. 467. 
Founded by Epaphras, i. 440f., 
449 f.5, 460. 
Jewish Christians in, i. 463 ff. 
Relation to Paul, i. 460f. 
Teaching concerning asceticism in, 
1. 465 ff. 
oe. Epistle to the, i, 459- 
479 


Authorship, i 1. 4563. 

Date, 1. 4525. 

Destination, i. 460. 

Genuineness, i. 491-522. 

Hitzig’s criticism of, i. 491, 515s. 

Occasion, i. 461. 

Predominant tone, i. 501 f. 

Relation of Ephesians to, i. 499 ff., 
516 f. 


7° 

Relation of teaching of Valentinus 
to, i. 498 f. 

Resemblance to Ephesians, i. 500 ff., 
516 f.g. 

Time and place of composition, i. 
439-452. 

Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 497 ff., 


B fig.’ 


INDEX 


Colossians and Ephesians, Epistles to 
the— 

Order of, i. 486, 490,. 

Genuineness of — 

Hilgenfeld on, i. 514f.5. 
Mayerhoff on, i. 514 f.5. 

Theory of interdependence— 
Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 5153. 
Holtzmann, i. 491, 499, 514,. 

“Comma Joanneum,” iil. 3727. 
Corinth— 

Apollos in, i, 262, 270 f.4;. 

Church of, i. 232 f. 

Apollos and Parties in, i. 283f., 
285 ff. 

Baptism in, i, 303). 

Charges of fickleness against Paul, 
i. 821 ff, 343 fis. 

Christ Party in, i. 292 ff. 

Collection in, i. 308 f., 318 f.,, 3206, 
338, 3516. 

Condition at date of 1 Cor., i. 273- 
306. 

Karly history, i. 256-273. 

Errors regarding resurrection in, 
i. 2784. 

False apostles in, i. 290 ff., 305 f.1. 

Founded by Paul, i. 256 f., 264,. 

Independent spirit of, i. 281f., 
297 


7 
Intercourse with heathen, i. 274 ff., 
278 f., 296, 
Letters from, to Paul, i, 261% 

Date of, i. "262, 

Libertines in, i. 280 ff. 

Lord’s Supper in, i. 284. 

Lost Epistle of Paul to, i. 263f., 
307, 312 ff., 327f., 329, 345 ffs. 

Hausrath’s theory of, i. 3134. 

Lost Epistle of, to Paul, i. 263, 
264, 2735. 

Membership, 1. 278. 

Moral condition when 1 Cor, was 
written, i. 263 f., 272 f.,,. 

Origin, i. 258. 

Parties, i. 282 ff. 

Various views about, 1. 298 ff. 9. 
Peter and Parties, i. 283 £. 
Question of sexual relations, i. 

276, 2963. 
Slaves in, i. 297,. 
Unrecorded visit of Paul, i, 263 f,, 
271 f.1934; 807, 316y, 327f. 
Women in public worship, i. 
280£. 
History of, i. 256 f., 264,. 
Paul’s first visit, i, 256 f. 


INDEX 


Corinth—continued. 
Paul’s work, i. 232 f. 
Peter in, i. 302 f.4o. 
Population, i. 273. 
Work of Paul in surrounding region, 
i, 257, 264 f.». 
Corinthians, First Epistle to the— 
Date, i. 259 f., 268,, 320;. 
Krenkle’s view, i. 268,. 
Occasion, 1. 260 f., 263 f., 295. 
Readers, i. 297 f.,. 
Corinthians, First and Second Epistles 
to the— 
Events intervening between, i. 321. 
Corinthians, Second Epistle to the— 
Analysis, 1. 809-312. 
Date, i. 320;. 
Effect, i. 342 f. 
Integrity, i. 312, 338 f. 
Occasion, i. 321- "351, 
Purpose, i. 335 ff. 
Readers, i. 308. 
Survey, 1. 307-321. 
Writers, i. 307, 316 ff.s. 
Corinthians, Third Epistle to the, i. 
160, 249, 270, ; ii. 285 f.: 
Crescens in Gaul, ii. 11f., 26. 
Crete, iii. 13849. 
Christianity in, 11. 44. 
_ False teaching in, ii. 44f. 
Jews in, il. 52). 
Paul in, ii. 48 f., 106. 
Crispus, i. 258, 265,. 
Cumanus— 
Governor of Galilee, iii. 470. 
Cyprian, Latin Bible of, origin, ii. 
515. 
Cyprus under Roman rule, iii. 463 ff. 


Dalmatia, i. 186, ; 11. 26. 

Missionary work in, ii. 11 f. 
Damascus, i. 67j5 ; 11. 455. 
“ Day of the Lord ”— 

in 2 Peter, 11. 226. 

in 2 Thess., i. 226f., 235. 
Deacon, ii. 91f., 123 f.4. 

Qualifications, ii. 32 f., 90 ff. 
Deaconesses— 

in the early Church, ii. 94f. 
Decapolis, i. 35, 675. 
Dedication of Classical Writings, iii. 

42, 8lo. 
Demas, i. 2135, ‘441, 450, ;/ ii. 3, 213, 87, 
2977 iil. 

Demetrius, the Silversmith, i ili, 163,. 
Demetrius (3 John 12), iii. 377, 381), 3. 
Derbe, i, 191 f.., 6) 209. 


493 


Diaspora, the, i. 75f., 80,, 829; ii. 
140f., 153 f.,. 
Connection with J erusalem, i. 60;. 
Greek influence of, i. 39 f. 
Greek used by, i. 46-48, 
Diatessaron of Ammonius, ii. 401, 420). 
Diatessaron of Tatian, il. 401, 421, ; 
ili. 22. 
Didache— 
Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 35,5 45, 
1649. 
Baptismal formula in, ii. 591,. 
Date and origin, ii. 3574. 
Dependent on Jude, ii. 259s. 
Eucharistic prayers of, i. 3049. 
Lord’s Supper in, ili. 40,5. 
Maranatha in, i. 30445. 
Use of Matthew, ii. 515. 
Didascalia— 
Apostolic decree in, iii. 21, 35,4. 
Witness to John vu. 53-viii. 11, i. 
3463. 
Dio Cassius— 
on Claudius, iii. 466 f. 
Diognetus, Epistle to, i. 312. 
Dionysius of Alexandria— 
on Revelation, iii. 428 f., 432, 433 f.., 
4355 6. 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185 f. 
Dionysius of Corinth— 
Letter to Romans, ii. 75s. 
on Peter and Paul, i. 302 f.4o. 
Dioscorides, ili. 82;, 160 f.;. 
Diotrephes, iii. 375 ff., 381 f.4.g. 
Disciples of Jesus— 
Calling of the first, in John, iii. 209. 
Choice and work, in Matt., ii. 545. 
Familiar with Greek, i. 42. 
First, ii. 189. 
Greek names, i. 41, 42. 
in Asia Minor, iii. 358, 370s. 
Items about, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
224,. 
Lists, ii. 506, 522 ff.;. 
Lists in Luke’s work, iii. 78. 
Order, iii. 210, 225,. 
Meaning of term, iii. 212f., 226 fi». 
Missionary activity, ii. 587,. 
Personal, distinction between, and 
other Christians, 11. 206 f. 
Relation to Jesus, ii. 463 f., 465 f. 
Relation to Jewish law, ii. 586f.. 
Sketches of, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
302 f. 
the Twelve— 
training, li. 463 ff. 
Training, in Fourth Gospel, iii, 301 f, 


494 


Domitian, ii. 240; iii. 183, 2014, 412, 
429.4. 

Doxologies in Epistles, i. 406, . 

Drusilla, i. 469, 474. 


Early Christian Writings— 
Date, 1. 157 f. 
Literary Character, i. 158 f. 
Easter Controversy, ii. 273-283, 293- 
298} 0-17- 
Easter— 
Date, iii. 293;9. 
Controversies concerning, iii. 177, 
192 f., 20455. 
View of Polycarp, 11. 20495. 
Ebionism in James, i. 148,. 
in Luke, iii. 74, 9204. 
Ebionites— 
Doctrine of poverty, iii. 91 f.94. 
Gospel of the— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Gospel used by, i. 13; ii. 518. 
Jewish zeal, i. 44 f, 
Language, i. 13. 
Literature, 11. 308. 


Edom— 
Jewish name for Rome, i. 178, 
188 fy. 
Egypt— 


Church in, ii. 344, 357 f.4. 
Founder, ii. 159. 
Jews in, i. 47; i. 357 f.4, 
Jewish Christian communities in, ii. 
357 fig. 
Egyptian, the, iii. 133. 
Elder, ii. 28,, 33 ff, 91f., 124f.,.9. 
“Elders” of Ireneeus, iii. 175, 178, 182, 
2015. 
Elect, the, ii. 1534, s. 
Enoch, Book of, ii. 286 ff.,. 
Original, 11. 270, 287 f.,. 
Quoted in Jude, ii, 248, 269 f., 
286 fi.,. 
Epenetus, i. 389f., 4175, ; ii. 188. 
Epaphras, i. 450,, 495 ; ii. 16. 
Founder of Church of Colossze, i. 
440 £., 449 f.g, 460, 484, 
Epaphroditus, i. 525 f., 528, 537,. 
eS Colossians, Epistles to 
the— 
order of, i. 486, 490,. 
genuineness— 
Hilgenfeld on, i. 514 fi». 
Mayerhoff on, i. 514 f... 
Theory of interdependence— 
Hitzig, i. 491, 499, 515s. 
Holtzmann, i, 491, 499, 514,. 


INDEX 


Ephesians, Epistle to the— 
Alleged motive for forgery, i. 
511 ff. 

Alleged new ideas in, i, 508 f. 

Baur on, i. 491, 511f. 

Christ, significance in, i. 509 ff. 

Copies, ii. 177. 

Date, i. 452, 483, 489 f.,, 492 f. 

Dependence on Colossians — 

View of Holtzmann, i. 517 f.,. 
Destination, i. 479-491. 

View of Church Fathers, i. 

A489 f.,. 
View of Marcion, i. 480f., 4883. 
Encyclical character, i. 484 ff. 
Genuineness, i. 491-522° 
Holtzmann on, i. 491, 512 ff. 
Predominant tone of, i. 501 f. 
Relation to Colossians, i. 
516 fig. 

Relation to Philemon, i. 493 ff. 

Relation to teaching of Valentinus, 
i. 498 f. 

Resemblance to Colossians, i. 500 ff., 
516 fig. 

Spuriousness, lexical proof of alleged, 
i. 502 ff., 518 ff.g. 

Time and place of composition, i. 
439-452. 

Title, i. 481, 483, 488f.g 4 5, 492 f. 
Marcion’s criticism, i. 481, 488.. 
known by Ignatius, i. 481. 

Origin, i. 486 f. 

Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 497 ff., 

515s. 
Ephesus— 

Christians in, li. 135 f. 

Church of, iil. 8331 f.45, 417 f 
origin, i. 483 f. 

Paul, and the, i. 483f., 489 f.;. 
Paul’s work in, i. 259. 

Ephrem—- 
Commentary ou Acts, iii. 275. 
on Colossians ii. 18, i. 476,. 
on 2 Thessalonians ii., i. 2395. 
on Church of Ephesus, i. 489,. 
on Hebrews, ii. 308,. 
on Paul in Spain, ii. 74,. 
on Peter, ii. 1645. 
Text of Romans known to, i. 405,. 
Epimenedes, ii. 44, 52 f.,. 
Epiphanes— 

Teachings of, ii.-292 f.,,. 
Episcopate— 

in Asia Minor, iii. 376, 417, 
Epistles, Catholie— 

Canonicity, 1, 123. 


499 ff, 


INDEX 


Epistles of N.T.— 
Address and greeting, i. 73f., 77., 
Doxologies in, 1. 4069. 
Silence of, concerning a Gospel 


literature, i i, 375i: 
Epistles of the Apostolic and Post- 
apostolic Age, greetings of, i. 
312 f., 335. 
Epistles of the Early Church, ii. 367 f. 
Epistolary Greeting— 
Classical form, 1. 369). 
Epistolary Salutations, i. 414).. 
Equality of Jew and Gentile in— 
Epistle to the Romans, i. 372 ff.4. 
Erastus, i. 259 ; ii. 88. 
in Corinth, il. 14f. 
Eschatology— 
Teaching of Gospels, i. 224,. 
Teaching of Jesus, i, 2244, 253). 
Teaching of Paul, i. 221, 223f.,, 


Bou 
Teaching of 1 Thessalonians, i. 221, 


4° 
Essenes, i. 376 f.19, 471, 479 ; li. 126)). 
Angelolatry among, 1. 476,. 
Etchmiadzin, Gospel of— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Eunice, ii. 22 f.,. 
Euodia, i Te DSO HSS75 OS le) DOL 1.4. 
Eupolemos, i. 37, 59,. 
Eusebius of Czesarea— 
Chronicle of, ii. 168, ; ii. 475. 
Gospel catalogues (xavdves), Gospel 
sections (wepikoral, keddaia), 
ii. 401, 420, 
on Aristion and John the presbyter, 
ii. 436, 452f.45 4. 
on earthquake in Asia Minor, i. 449,, 
452,. 
on Luke, iii. 2, 4f.,4. 
on Mark and his Gospel, ii. 432f., 
Ee PN SAB OF 1 ta. 
on Matthew and his Gospel, ii. 
528,. 
on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 77 f.., 
805, 167 f.4, 449 Faro. 
Use of term Syriac, i. 22 f.4. 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185f,, 
20315. 
Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum, ii. 
520 ; ili, 36,5. 
Evangelist— 
Meaning of term in Paul’s Epistles, 
i. 507f. 
Evangelium Veritatis, ii. 389 f. 
Eye-witnesses, iii. 46 ff., 82,, 847. 


495 


Ezekiel— 
Tragic Jewish poet, wrote in Greek, 
i. 38, 59, 
(Fourth) Ezra, i. 142. 
on fasting, 1. 37749. 


Fables, ii. 103 ff., 113, 128 f.,. 
Fadus, iii. 460 f. 
Faith— 
Teaching concerning, in John, iii. 
305 ff. 
False Teachers— 
of Colossee, i. 463 ff., 478,. 
of 1 John, iii. 363- 368, 
of Jude, il. 243-252, 292f.,,. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
of 2 Peter, ii. 224 ff, 
292 fury. 
Character, 11. 279-283. 
Origin, ii. 226 f. 
Famine in Judea, the— 
Date, Josephus on, iii. 460 f. 
Faustus, Manichean— 
on the Gospels, ii. 387, 396. 
Felix, Procurator, iii. 76, 469-478, 
Festus, Procurator, ii. 469-478. 
First Person— 
Use of, in ancient literature, iii, 


231, 232 fy, 


86. 
Flavia Domitilla, iii. 422,. 
Fortunatus, i. 260, 269.. 
Fourth Gospel— 
see John, Gospel of. 


Gabbatha, TafBaba— 
Meaning, i. 28;,. 
Gaius (of 3 John), 3 ili. 374 ff., 381,-5. 
Gaius of Corinth, i. 209,, 266,, 435. 
Gaius of Derbe, i 2095, 213,, 3214. 
Gaius of Macedonia, 1. 209,, 213,. 
Galatia, i. 173-193 ; ii. 134, 151 £.,, 9. 
Bibliography, i. 18 83). 
Churches of, i. 176f, 191 £., ; i. 138: 
Character, li. 136. 
Composition, i i. 166, 177, 192 f.,. 
False teachers in, i. 166 f. 
Founded by Paul, li. 1354, 
Origin, i. 164f. 
Jews in, 1. 177, 1925¢. 
Judaisers in, i. 177f., 182 f. 
Luke’s use of term, i. 174f. 
Meaning of, in Galatians i. 2,1. 175 ff. 
Meaning of i in 1 Cor. xvi. 1,1. 175. 
Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1, 1. 175. 
Older(N: orth Galatian) and modern 
(South Galatian) views, i, 
174f., 183,. 


496 


Galatia—continued. 
Meaning of, in 1 Peter i. 1—continued. 
Confirmation of South Galatian 
view, i. 178 ff. 
Messengers from, to Paul, i. 198. 
Paul’s use of term, i. 174 ff. 
Use of term by Roman writers, i. 
174, 183 if. 
Confirmed by inscriptions, i. 184f... 
Galatians, i. 173-193. 
Nationality of, i. 183. 
Galatians, Epistle to the— 
Acquaintance of Paul with Roman 
law in, i. 201 f.,. 
Analysis, i. 167 ff. 
Baur’s view of, i. 243 f. 
Calvin’s view of date, i. 2025. 
Compared with Acts, i. 178-182. 
Date and place of composition, i. 170, 
173;, 193-202, 195, 196f., 
198 f., 200,, 2025, 233. 
on North Galatian theory, i. 193 f. 
on South Galatian theory, i. 194 ff. 
False teachers of, ii. 2574. 
Genuineness, 1. 242-255. 
Hist. presuppositions and occasion, 
1. 164-173. 
How written, i. 170, 1724. 
Ideas of,compared with Romans, i, 201. 
Marcion’s view of, i. 248. 
Occasion, i. 166 f. 
Peculiar words, i. 503, 521 f.4o. 
Peter, form of name, in, i. 155g. 
_ Readers, i. 1738-193, 175 ff., 178 ff. 
Source of information for, i. 169. 
View of Dutch School, i. 243 f. 
Galen, ii. 82f.,, 160f.,. 
Galilean Dialect, i. 9, 27133 Ui. 29244, 
455, 5. 
Gallio, i. 258, 267, ; iii. 149, 467f. 
Gamaliel the elder, i. 11, 51; 111. 99. 
Gamaliel the younger, 1. 323, 629; 
iii. 99. 

Three letters of, i. 10. 
Gaul— 

Missionary Work in, ii. 11 f. 
Gaza, ili. 164,,. 
Genealogies, ii. 103 ff., 128 f.,,. 
Genealogy, li. 532, 562 f.9. 
Gennesaret, iii. 3334. 
Gentile Churches— 

Paul’s care of, i. 462 f. 

View of 2 Peter, 11. 264. 
Gentiles— 

and the Gospel— 

View of Matthew, ii. 587 f.,. 
Relation to Synagogues, i. 212 f.g. 


INDEX 


Gischala, i. 68 f.,. 
Glaukias, ii. 455 f.,,. 
Gnosticism, in Ephesians and Colos- 
sians, 1. 497 ff. 
Valentinian, in Epistle to the 
Philippians, 1. 557. 
Gnostics— 
Misunderstanding of Paul, i. 125 f. 
on the Gospels, 1. 389. 
Golgotha, meaning, i. 29;;. 
Gomorrah, iii. 398, 406y. 
Gospel, the-— 
and the Gospels, ii. 388. 
Uniqueness, i. 388. 
Gospel, the One, ii. 388. 
Gospel, the Original— 
View of J. G. Eichhorn, ii. 404, 
492. f.5. 
View of Herder, ii. 423,. 
View of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414. 
View of H. J. Holtzmann, i. 415, 
View of G. E. Lessing, li. 403. 
View of B. Weiss, ii. 417. 
Gospel, the Original Unwritten— 
View of Gieseler, ii, 408 f. 
View of Herder, ii. 406. 
View of Holsten, ii. 426,5. 
Gospel, the Unwritten, 11. 367-386. 
Gospel History, the— 
Oral transmission of, li, 384,; iti. 
48, 84,. 
Variant forms of the oral, ii. 603 f. 
Gospels, the, and Acts— 
Length of, 11. 4874. 
Gospel Literature— 
Beginnings of, date, il. 376. 
Occasion for, 11. 375 f. 
Silence of other N.T. writings con- 
cerning, ii. 375 £, 
Gospel Preaching— 
Early— 
Content, ii. 174. 
to Gentiles and O.T. Prophecy, ii. 
146. 
to Gentiles— 
Content, ii. 208. 
to Jews— 
Content, ii. 202 f., 2151... 
“ Gospel of Christ ”— 
in Pauline writings, ii, 370 ff, 
377 fg. 
Gospel of Jesus Christ, the— 
Meaning, ii. 459f. 
Gospels, the— 
and the Gospel, ii, 388. 
Authorship, internal evidence con- 
cerning, ii, 391 f, 


INDEX ~* 


ospels, the—continued. 
Authorship, origin of tradition con- 
cerning, 11. 391 f. 
Authorship, tradition concerning, in 
Ist and 2nd century, ii. 386- 
392. 
Authorship— 
View of Clement, ii. 387. 
View of Faustus, ii. 387, 396). 
View of Gnosties, ii. 389 f. 
View of Irenzeus, ii. 387, 3974. 
View of Justin, ii. 389. 
View of Marcion, ii. 390f. 
View of Muratonian Canon, ii. 
387. 
View of Origen, ii. 387. 
View of Papias, ii. 394. 
View of Tertullian, ii. 399 f.,. 
View of Valentinians, ii. 390. 
Differences in, early attempts to 
harmonise, i. 402, 421. 
Divisions (sepixorai,  Kepddaia, 
xavoves) made by Eusebius, 
ii. 401, 420f.,. 
Eschatology of, i. 224,. 
Greek MSS, titles of, ii. 
396.5. 
Harmonies, ii. 421,. 
Latin MSS, titles of, ii. 387, 396,. 
Order in Egyptian Codex, ii. 393, 
398,. 
Order of Composition— 
Tradition concerning, li. 392-396, 
397-4005... 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
ii, 394 ff., 4005. 
View of Irenzeus, ii. 393 f., 398. 
View of Muratorian Canon, 11. 393, 


387, 


3995. 
View of Old Latin Prologues, ii. 
400s. 
View of Origen, ii. 392 f., 3975. 
Origin, common tradition in the 
Church regarding, ii. 386-400. 
Origin, date of traditional, ii. 374 f. 
Read in Church services, ii. 386. 
Relation of, to the original language 
of the gospel tradition, 1. 
574 ff. 
Similarities of language in, noted by 
Augustine, ii. 402, 422,. 
Synopses of, ii, 421). 
Titles, meaning of, 11. 387f., 396,-3. 
Unity of, ii. 388, 397.5. 
Use in religious services of Christians, 
ii. 376. 
View of Marcion, ii. 390f, 
VOL. III, 


497 


Gospels, Synoptic— 
see Synoptic Gospels. 
Greek, attitude of Rabbis towards, i. 
62 fi. 
Greek and Latin Words used by Jesus, 
i. 41. 
Greek Churches— 
Liturgical Formule, Aramaic ex- 
pressions in, i. 12, 18, 185. 
origin, i. 12 f. 
Greek cities in Palestine, i. 35 f. 
Greek coins in Palestine, i. 37. 
Greek Influence on Hasmonean High 
Priests, i. 37. 
Greek Influence on Jews, through 
diaspora, 1. 35 ff., 39 f. 
Under Greek Rule, i. 35-37. 
Under Hasmoneans, i. 37. 
Under Herod the Great, i. 37 f. 
Under Roman Rule, i. 38f. 
Greek— 
Josephus’ knowledge of, i. 635. 
Knowledge of, among higher classes 
of Palestine, i. 41. 
Knowledge of, among middle and 
lower classes of Palestine, i. 
40-43. 
Language among Jews, i. § 2. 
Language in Palestine, i. 35-46. 
Official language under Roman rule 
in. Palestine, i. 38 f. 
Used by Jesus and disciples, i. 42. 
View of J. Voss, i. 58). 


Harmonies of the Gospels, ii. 421,. 
Hasmonean High Priests, Greek Influ- 
ence on, i. 37. 
Hebraisms in Luke, iii. 104f., 135,,. 
Hebrew, Hebrews (‘EBpaios)— 
Meaning of term, i. 48 ff, 60f.,; ii. 
296, 306 f.4. 
Hebrew Language— 
Greek knowledge of, iii. 14197. 
Modern— 
origin, 1. 6. 
Use of, in time of Christ, i. 6-9, 


10° 
Used on Maccabean Coins, i. 25,. 
(Aramaic) words in Luke, iii. 


“12-14 
(Aramaic) words in Mark, iii. 135f.19. 
Zeal of Rabbis for, i. 40. 
Hebrews, Epistle to the— 
Author— 
= Apollos, i. 356, 364 f.15. 
= Aquila and Priscilla, ii. 365 f.15. 
= Aristion, ii, 366,,. 


32 


498 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. 
Author—continued. 
= Barnabas, ii. 302f., 310,9, 354- 
356, 361)3. 
origin of tradition, 11. 303. 
Birthplace, ii. 3573. 
=Clement of Rome, i. 300. 
Facts about, ii. 316. 
Known to the readers, ii. 304. 
= Luke, ii. 300. 
Nationality, 11. 324. 
= Paul, ii. 296, 298-302, 303, 352f., 
360,). 
origin of tradition, 11. 304. 
Relation to readers, 1. 316. 
Traditions concerning, li. 298-305. 
Authorship— 
Origin of three-fold tradition 
concerning, ii. 303 ff., 311,. 
Tradition of Alexandrian Church, 
ii. 298-301, 308;, 309,. 
Tradition of Greek Churches, 
ii. 301. 
Tradition of Western Churches, 
ii. 301 f., 309 fig. 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
ii. 296. 
View of Harnack, i. 365 f.,,. 
View of Hippolytus, 11. 301f., 3105. 
View of Irenzeus, ii. 301 f., 310g. 
View of Klostermann, ‘ii. 3059. 
View of Luther, ii. 356, 364,,. 
View of Montanists, 11. 302 f. 
View of Origen, li. 352 f., 356. 
View of Pantzenus, ii. 308;. 
View of Tertullian, 11. 302, 3104. 
Canonicity, ii. 305. 
Character, ii. 313 f. 
Date, ii. 293, 320 f., 323, 343, 351 f. 
Didactic writing, ii. 293. 
Epistolary character, ii. 314f. 
False (strange) teachings, warned 
against, 11. 3831ff. 
Greek style, ii. 299. 
Greeting, alleged lost, ii. 311,,, 313. 
Greeting wanting, 1. 293 f. 
Hebraisms, ii. 361 9. 
Historical presuppositions, li. 312- 
341 


in the Roman Church, ii. 346. 

Jerusalem, references to the destruc- 
tion of, in, ii. 3851, 359 fig. 

Language and style, ii. 8360 fi. 

Language, original, ii. 361). 

Literary form, ii. 312. 

Luke, the alleged translator of 
Hebrews, ii. 298 f., 308;. 


INDEX 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. 


Origin, ii. 352. 
Original language, alleged, ii. 296, 
298 ff., 308,, 309p. 
O.T., allegorical and typological treat- 
ment of the, in, ii. 320-328. 
O.T. quotations in, ii. 320f., 337,. 
Pauline Epistles compared with, ii. 
353 £., 360 f.49. 
Purpose, ii. 314, 330. 
Readers, ii. 298, 296, 297f., 314f., 
323 f., 341-351, 356-359)... 
and the Jerusalem Collection, ii. 
317. 
asceticism among the, ii. 332 ff. 
Location— 
Alexandria, ii. 344, 3573. 
Antioch, ii. 344, 356 fi». 
Ephesus, li. 344. 
Italy (Rome), 11. 345-351, 358,, 
3593. 
Jerusalem, ii. 341-343. 
Palestine (outside Jerusalem), 
ii, 343 f.,, 356,. 
varying views, li. 333 ff. 
Nationality of, ii. 323 ff, 328f., 
338. 
Not hearers of the preaching of 
Jesus, ii. 315 f., 342. 
Persecution of, ii. 317 ff., 336 f.;. 
Relation to temple cultus, ii. 34143. 
Religious life of, ii. 317f., 3191. 
328 f., 330f., 339 £.,,. 

_ Tradition concerning, ii. 293-298. 
View of ancient scholars, ii. 297. 
Readers, date and author of, ii, 341- 

366. 
Relation to Philo, ii. 364f.,,. 
Relation to Romans, ii. 365. 
Septuagint used in, ti. 361,.. 
Style, 11. 353. 
Teaching-— 
Mosaic Law, ii. 333f., 340f.4,, 
342, 
New covenant, ii, 324, 
O.T. Cultus, il. 326 f., 333 f., 3385, 
340 f.19. 
Temple Cultus, alleged ignorance of, 
ii, 355, 361 ff.,4. 
Theology— 
Christology— 
High Priest, ii. 327, 330, 362 f.44 
Humiliation, ii. 330. 
Incarnation, ii. 329 f. 
King, ii. 329 f. 
Redeemer, ii. 329 f. 
Faith, ii. 325 f., 328, 


INDEX 


Hebrews, Epistle to the—continued. 
Title, ii, 294-298. 

Currency, ii. 294 f., 304. 

Date, ii. 295. 

Meaning, ii. 296 f. 

Origin, 11. 295, 298 f., 3055, 3063. 

View of Klostermann, ii. 305». 

View of Pantzenus, li. 308,. 

View of Sema, ii. 305 f.,. 
Tradition concerning, li. 293-312. 
View of Clement of Alexandria, ii. 

298 f., 308, 309¢. 
View of Origen, ii. 299f., 308;, 


309,. 
Hebrews, Gospel of the— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Hegesippus— 
on Heresy in Palestinian Church, 
ii, 292, 5. 
on James the Just, 1. 1074. 
Helena, Princess, iii. 460 f. 
Hellenes, i. 585. 
Josephus on, 1. 585. 


Hellenic— 
Meaning, 1. 36. 
Hellenism in Jewish Christian 


Churches in Syria, i. 44, 67,9. 
Hellenistic— 
Usage and meaning of term, ii. 296, 
309,. 
Hellenistic Dialect, i. 56. 
” Greek, ue 54-57, a fioy- 
Bibliography, i. 57). 
Hellenistic influence in Palestine, i. 
35 ff. 
Hellenists, i. 8, 9, 39f., 71 f.o). 
in Early Church, i. 43 ff. 
in Jerusalem Church, 1. 40, 43, 60s, 
660. 
Synagogues of, in Jerusalem, i. 39f., 
50. 


Heracleon, i. 475,. 
Commentary on John, iii. 176. 
on Author of John, iii. 1999. 
“ Heresy,” ii. 232 fig. 
Hermas, il. 359;. 
acquainted with Hebrews, ii. 346. 
Hermas, the Shepherd of— 
Date, i. 128. 
Relation to Hebrews, ii. 346, 359,. 
Relation to James, i, 128, 135;. 
Relation of 2 Peter to, ii. 284 f.3. 
Uneanonical, ii. 302 f. 
Hermas (Rom. xvi. 14), i. 420.4. 
Hermogenes, ii. 3, 213, 12947. 
Herod the Great, ii. 132;. 
Greek influence of, i. 37 f. 


499 


Herodion, i. 393. 

Hierapolis, i. 1853, 448 f.o. 

Hierapolis, Church of, ii. 412. 
Founded by Epaphras, i. 441, 449 f.,. 

Hippocrates, 11. 82 f.;, 160f.;. 

Hymeneus, ii. 213, 42,, 108ff., 115, 


12947. 
Iconium, i. 191f., ¢; ii. 6, 19. 
Ignatius— 
in Province of Asia, i. 497. 
Epistles of— 
Influence of Fourth Gospel on, 111. 
176, 3274. 
on Jewish Teachers in Asia Minor, 
ii. 116. 


on “love feasts,” ii. 2363. 

Title of Ephesians known to, i. 481. 

Witness to Peter’s presence in Rome, 

ii, 165 f.4. 
India— 

Bartholomew in, ii. 385,. 

Gospel of Matthew in, il. 385. 
Inscriptions, Bilingual, i. 59s. 
Treneeus— 

on Antichrist, i. 238 f.9. 

on Cerinthus, i. 5154. 

on Hebrews, 11. 295, 301, 3105. 

on John, ili. 201,4, 20597, 254,. 

on Mark, ii. 387, 393 f., 398,, 433f. 

on Matthew, ii. 393 f., 398,. 

on Peter and Paul in Rome, ii. 76,, - 

393, 398;. 

on Polycarp, ili. 20454. 

on Rey. xiil. 18 (666), iii. 445, 448;. 
Ischodad, ii. 522). 

on the list of disciples, il. 522). 

on Matt. i. 20, ii. 529,. 

Israel, Spiritual, i. 76, 819. 
Italian Band, i. 60,. 


James, Brother of Jesus, i. 1094, ii. 240. 

Attitude toward Paul’s doctrine of 
Justification, i. 124, 129 ff.,, 
132,. 

Author of Epistle, i. 104. 

Brother of Jude, i. 238 f., 256. 

Called “the just,” i. 108, 107,, 131, 
139f., 146. 

Death, i. 103. 

Head of Jerusalem Church, i. 103 f., 
108. 

=James of Mark xiv. 51f,, ii. 447. 

Personality, i. 101-110. 

Spurious letter of, i. 148;. 

Training and habits of thought, i, 
110-123, 


500 INDEX 


James, Epistle of—continued. 


James, the Less, i. 106. 
Theory of Aramaic original, i. 1121 
118 


James, Son of Alpheus, i. 102, 106; 
ii, 507, 522). 


6* 
James, Son of Zebedee, i. 102, 106; i. Theory of Harnack, i. 147}. 


187, 20419, 91, 210ff., 216. 
Alleged author of John, 111. 228)3. 
Death, iii. 188, 194y. 

Martyrdom, ii. 457. 

Notices of, in N.T., ii, 490, 505,,. 
James, Protevangelium of— 

Date, ii. 375. 

James, Epistle of— 

Address and greeting, i. 73, 83y, 

100,5, 113, 1197, 136, 146 £.,. 
Affinity with discourses of Jesus, i. 

114, 122)). 

Analysis, i. 1173. 
Author, i. 101 £., 104, 106 f.y. 
familiar with Gr. O.T., i. 113, 
120s. 
knowledge of Heb. O.T., i. 113 f. 
Canonicity, i. 123 f. 
Canonicity in Alexandrian Church, 
1. 123 f. 
Christian ideas, i. 144 f. 
Date, i. 73, 77, 91f., 124, 129, 136, 

146 f.,, 1475. 

evidences of early, i. 148 f.,. 
Destination, i. 73-83. 
Divergent views regarding, i. 136- 

151. ; 

Ebionism in, i. 148,. 

External evidence for, i. 123-136. 
Language, i. 112f., 117 f.4. 

Law referred to, i. 110f., 115f.,, 

130 f.,. 

Literary character, i. 139 f. 
Progress of thought, i. 117.3. 
Readers, i. 83-101. 
Jewish Christians, i. 89 ff., 1009, 19. 
Resident in Palestine, i. 91, 100,,. 
Relation to Clement, 1 Cor., i. 128, 

1344. 

Relation to Clement, 2 Cor., i. 185,. 
Relation to Pseudo - Clementine 

Literature, i. 136,. 

Relation to Gospels, i. 114, 122). 
Relation to Hebrews, i. 123,,. 
Relation to Hermas, i. 128, 135;. 
Relation to Revelation, i. 123). 
Relation of 1 Peter to, i. 128, 133 f., ; 

ii. 175 £., 1865. 

Relation of Pauline Epistles to, i. 

1325. 

Relation of Romans to, i. 126ff., 


132,. 
Style, i. 112, 118,. 


Theory of Spitta, i. 141 ff., 149 f.,. 
Theory of Weizsacker, i. 148,. 
Tone of, i. 101, 106), ». 
Use of Sirach, 1. 114, 1214p. 
Jannes and Jambres, il. 115. 
Jason, i. 2134, 417993 ili. 33. 
Jason and Papiscus, Dialogue of— 
Authorship, ili. 3.;. 
J erome— 
Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 18 
203) 9. 
Jerusalem— 
Christian Church in— 
Attitude toward temple worshi 
li. 333. 
Beginnings of, ii. 138. 
Church of— 
Missionary activity of, ii. 342 f.. 
Poverty of, 11. 342. 
Jerusalem Collection, i. 2092, 368f. 
Jerusalem Council— 
Date, i. 178, 194. 
Jerusalem— 
Destruction of, ii. 2541. 
Prophecy of, iii. 156 ff. 
References to, in Hebrews, li. 351 
359 fig. 
Greek form of name in N.T., i 
592 fio. 
Jewish pronunciation of, i. 29;;. 
Jesus, the name, ii. 555, 569,,3; 1 
576 £., 5925. 
Jesus Christ— 
Aramaic words used by, i. 3. 
List, i. 15 ff. 
Attitude toward Jewish law, ii 


586. 

Attitude toward Judaism, in John 
ili. 342. 

Attitude toward Pharisees, in John 
ili, 342. 

Attitude toward Pharisees an 


Sadducees in Matt., ii. 549, 
Baptism, in Matt., 11. 540. 
Birth— 
Date, iii. 98. 
Blasphemy of name, i. 89, 99,. 
Brothers, i. 104f., 110,; ii. 238f 
240 f., 256. 


Brothers and Cousins, iii. 188 
204.. 

Crucifixion, in missionary preaching 
ll. 369. 


INDEX 501 


Tesus Christ—continued. 


Crucifixion and death in John, iii. 
217 f. 
persons present at, iii. 217 f. 
Davidic descent, 11. 533 ff., 5633, 567;. 
Death, in John, iii. 320 f. 
Date, in Fourth Gospel, ii. 277f., 
281, 293 f.4,. 
Date, in Synoptics, iii. 278, 294 f.,. 
Teaching concerning, in Matt., 11. 
551 
Death and resurrection— 
Date, iii. 481. 
Deeds and words— 
Committed to writing, ii. 368- 
376. 
Early source of knowledge of, ii. 
374 


in Missionary preaching, il. 369 f., 
377 ff.o. 

Origin of Paul’s knowledge of, ii. 
373, 384,. 

References to, by Paul, ii. 370 ff., 
3795, 379 ffx. 

References to, in N.T. writings 
(Gospels excluded) for Chris- 
tians outside of Palestine, ii. 
379 ff.4. 

References to, in N.T. writings 
(Gospels excluded) for Jewish 
Christians of Palestine, ii. 
383 f.,. 

Tradition of Apostolic Church con- 
cerning, ll. 372. 

written records of (Gospels ex- 
cluded), ii. 372 ff. 

Disciples in Asia Minor, iii. 358f., 


Discourses in Matt., ii. 557 ff. 

Early history in Luke, iii. 62 ff. 

False teaching concerning, in Church 
of Colossze, i. 467. 

Familiar with Greek, i. 42. 

Feasts during ministry of, ili. 285 f.,. 

Foreign words used by, i. 64). 

Galilean ministry, in Fourth Gospel, 
iii. 260f. 

in Luke, iii. 106. 

Healing acts, in Matt., ii. 544f. 

Healing work, in Luke, iii. 146 ff. 

History of, agreement with O.T. 
prophecy in Matt., ii. 537 ff., 
567,. 

in Hebrews, ii. 327, 329 f. 

Intercourse with His disciples, in 
Matt., ii. 550. 

Language of, ii, 573 f, 


Jesus Christ—continued. 
Language of—continued. 

Aramaic, i. 2 f. 

Bibliography, i. 14). 

Last days, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
267 ff. 

Last Passover, place of celebration, 
ii. 429, 447,. 

Last Supper— 

Persons present, iii. 214, 227 f.4o. 

Matthew’s acquaintance with, ii. 
BOT f., 5245, 
Name, in Pauline Epistles, ii. 353 f. 
Names in Revelation, iii. 434, .. 
Origin, Jewish suspicion concerning, 
li. 536, 538, 5635. 
the Paschal Lamb, iii. 276f., 2935. 
Passion— 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 270 ff. 
in Synoptics, iii. 278 f. 
Passion and Resurrection— 

History in Matt., ii. 554 ff. 
Passovers in ministry of, iii. 167 f. 
Predicts destruction of Jerusalem, 

ii. 156 f. 
Public ministry, length of, iii. 167 f. 
Relation of disciples to, ii. 4631.,465 f. 
Relation to Jewish Law, in Luke, 
iii, Doo. 
Relatives of, 1i1. 101, 1355. 
Resurrection— 
Date, Fourth Gospel, iii. 281. 
Synopties, lii. 278. 

in missionary preaching, ii. 369. 
Sayings, how cited, ii. 388. 
Significance in Luke, iii. 70 ff. 

in Paul’s doctrine, i. 509 ff. 
Teaching— 

Disciples and the Jewish Law, ii. 


Eschatology, i. 224,, 253). 
False Christs, i. 228. 


in John— 
Significance of Miracles, iii. 
299 f., 308 ff. 
in Luke— 


Poverty, iii. 72 ff. 
Wealth, iii. 72 ff. 
in Matt. i. 542 ff. 
the Gospel and the Gentiles, ii. 
587 f.1. 
Temptation— 
Account in Luke, iii. 111, 137,,. 
in Matt., iii. 111, 137,,. 
Title, in Luke, iii. 914). 
Titles, in John, iii, 308 ff., 316, 
326., 2. 


502 


Jesus Christ—continued. 
Transfiguration, ii. 204, 215 f.,. 
References to, in 2 Peter, ii. 216 ff. 
Trial, iii. 270 ff., 352 f.45. 
Visits in Jerusalem, ii. 167 f. 
Words of — 
Relation of instruction in the 
Early Christian Church to, 
ii. 370f. 
see also Deeds and words. 
Work— 
According to Mark, u. 460 f. 
in Galilee, ii. 541 f. 
in Jerusalem, ii. 553 f. 
Jesus Justus, i. 649, 441 f., 4504, 494; 
ii. 371. 
Jesus, the son of Sirach, i. 6. 
Jews— 
Usage and meaning of term, ii. 306 f.4. 
Jew and Gentile, equality of, in Epistle 
to the Romans, 1. 372 ff.4. 
Jewish Christian Communities in 
Egypt, li. 357 f.4. 
Jewish Christianity of Post-Apostolic 
Age, 1. 138. 
Jewish Christians— 
in Church of Colosse, i. 463 ff. 
Jewish Epitaphs in Rome, i. 67,3, 67,4. 
Jewish Greek, i, 54-57. 
Jewish Law— 
Attitude of Jesus toward, ii. 586 f.. 
Jewish Literature, foreign words in, i. 
64),. 
Jews— 
Expelled from Rome, iii. 466 f. 
in Asia Minor, i. 47. 
in Crete, li. 52,. 
in Egypt, i. 47; i. 357 f.4. 
in Galatia, 1. 177, 1925. 
in Jerusalem, Letters of, to other 
Jewish communities, i. 144, 
151,. 
in Philippi, i. 522 f. 
in the Province of Asia, i. 449,. 
in Rome, i. 47), 6715. 
Language used by, in time of Christ, 
1See 


Palestinian, Greek influence on, i. 
35 ff. 
Proper names of, i. 639. 
Synagogue services, i. 212,. 
Use of Greek, i. § 2, 
Jezebel, the prophetess li, 292), 3 ili. 
424 Tf. 


Johannine Writings— 
see John, Epistles of, Gospel of, 
Writings of— 


INDEX , ; : 


John— 
Use of name, iii. 433,. 
Alleged meeting with Cerinthus, i 
192, 20454. 
at trial of Jesus, i. 271. 
Author of Johannine writings, trad 
tional, iii. 178 ff., 1999, 49. 
Identity, iii. 180 f., 199 f.49. 
Biographical notes, iil, 175, 19 
194 fio. 
in Synopties, ii. 187 f. 
Clement on, ili. 2059¢. 
Death, iii. 194 fio. 
Various accounts, ili. 
205 far, a5: 
Designation, in 


193 f 
Mark, ii. 4904 


bas 

Disciples of, iti. 175 f., 191, 194 f.o. 

Exile on Patmos, iii. 201 f.,4, 408 f 
420,. 

Family, references in Fourth Gosps 
to, iii. 210 ff., 222. 

in Asia Minor, iii. 358 f., 370s. 

Inferences concerning, from Johar 
nine Epistles, 11. 190 f. 

Jesus’ pl ng concerning, iil. 242 

247, 


Mother of, iii. 187 f., 190, 204.). 

References to, in Fourth’ Gospel, ti 
189 f. 

Testimony of, to Mark’s Gospel, i 
501. 


Various stories about, lil. 205 ,. 
Writings of— 
Tradition concerning, lii. 174—20¢ 

John, Acts of, li. 4495. 
on Transfiguration, 11. 218,. 

John, Epistles of— 

Antichrist in, 1. 228. 
Author, ili. 184 ff. 

John, First Epistle of, iti. 355-374. 
Antichrist in, iii, 364 f., 371,. 
Author, iii. 356 ff, 368 f. 

Character and form, iii. 355 f. 

Christology, ii. 366 f. 

Date, ili. 369. 

Epistolary character, ii. 313. 

Ethical admonitions in, iii. 361 ff. 

False teachers of, i. 363-368. 

Introduction, ii. 313. 

Readers, iti, 356, 363, 369 f.,. 

Relation to Fourth Gospel, ii. 368 
3739. 

Witness of Papias to, iii. 184, 202f.,, 

Witness of Polycarp to, iii. 184. 

John, Second and Third Epistles of 

ili, 374-384, 


H 


INDEX 503 


| John, Second and Third Epistle of— 


continued. 

Author, iii. 378, 380. 
View of Dionysius, iii. 185 f. 
View of Eusebius, ili. 186, 203,.. 
View of Jerome, iii. 186, 203). 
View of Origen, iii. 185, 203,.. 

Canon, ili. 185. 

Circulation, iii. 184 f. 

Date, ili. 380. 

Length, iii. 378, 382,. 

Style, iti. 378, 382,. 


John, Second Epistle of, iii. 378-380, 


*7-9* 


Readers, iii. 379. 


John, Third Epistle of, iii. 374-378, 


Babes. 
Addressee, iii. 374 ff. 
Criticism— 

Bibliography, i. 381). 


John, Gospel of— 


Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 
340, 3533. 

Author— 

An eyewitness, ili. 209, 219, 221, 
228, 4, 336 ff., 349 f.s. 

Relation to Jesus, iii. 343 f. 

Testimony of the Gospel to, ii. 
207-232. 

View of Irenzeus, 111. 254,. 

View of Alogi, 11. 389. 

Character, iii. 299-307. 

Chronology of Passion History in, 
iii, 273-283, 293-298) 9.17. 

Date, iii. 334 f., 3494. 

Witnesses for, iii. 198. 

Disciples, items about the, in, ili. 
224, 

Discourses of Jesus in, compared 
with discourses in the Syn- 
optics, ii. 344, 3547. 

Discourses of Jesus in, trustworthi- 
ness, ili. 344 f., 354 f.47 1. 

External evidence for, ii. 174, 194). 

Galilean ministry in, iii. 260 f. 


Genuineness, iii. 335-345, 349- 
3557-19. y 
Arguments against, iii. 336f., 


*Be 
Bibliography, iti. 3497. 
Geographical references in, ili. 340, 
Sy iiy: 
Greek style, 111. 340, 353,,4. 
Heb. translation of, ii. 519 f. 
Influence in Early Church literature, 
iii. 176--178. 
Integrity, iii. 333 f., 345 ff.;-5. 


John, Gospel of—continued. 


Jesus, last days of, in, iii. 267 ff. 
Jesus, titles of, in, iii. 308 ff., 316, 
326», » 
Narrative style of, ii. 337 ff., 3505. 
Origin— 
Canon Mur. on, iii. 178 f., 197. 
Clem. Alex. on, iii. 178, 197;. 
Trenzeus on, iii. 179, 1977. 
Tradition of, iii. 179 f., 197 f., 
Original material in, iii. 269 f. 
O.T. citations in, iii. 340, 354,,. 
O.T. Prophecy in, iii. 330 f.49. 
Papias on, in Latin fragment, iii. 
196 fy. 
Papias, testimony of, to, iii. 178, 
1965. 
Peculiarity, iii. 335 f. 
Political references in, iii. 340, 352)5. 
Prologue, iii. 312 ff., 3274, 327 ff... 
Purpose, iii. 207 f. 
Alleged, ili. 275. 
Purpose and Method, ili. 299-323. 
Readers, ii. 207 f., 299, 323 ff. 
Acquaintance with the 
history, i. 254 ff., 280. 
Addressed, 1ii. 207, 223). 
Relation of 1 John to, ili. 368, 3789. 
Relation of, to Gospel of Mark, ii. 
444, 

Relation to Philo, iii. 317 f. 

Relation to the Synoptic Gospels,. 
iii, 254-298, 306 f. 

Bibliography, iii. 283}. 

Relation to traditions concerning 
Jesus’ deeds and words cur- 
rent in Apostolic Church, ii. 
372. 

Supplementary Chapter, ii. 232- 
254. 


Gospel 


Author, iii. 234 ff. 
Date, iii. 240. 
Early witnesses to, iii, 234, 
250 fu. 
Language, compared with chs. i.- 
XX., i. 233, 249). 
Origin and date, iii. 247 f. 
Relation to chs. ixx., lil, 233- 
236. 
Synoptic Gospels presupposed in, 
iii, 254-264, 280, 284. 
Text— 
Changes in, ili. 333, 345,. 
Disarrangements in— 
View of Spitta, iii. 334, 347f.,. 
Glosses, iii. 333, 345 f.., 
Integrity, ili. 333 f., 345 ff.,.,. 


504 


John, Gospel of—continued. 
Text—continued. 
Interpolations in, ili. 334, 346 f... 
Later elements, ii. 334, 3474. 
Theology— 
Faith, 305 ff. 
J esus— 
Humanity, iii. 318 ff. 
Incarnation, iii. 310 f. 
Knowledge, iii. 319. 
= Logos, lii. 312-321, 32775. 
Messiah, iii. 308 f. 
Pre-existence, iii. 311 f. 
Son of God, iii. 309 ff. 

Logos, the, iii, 312-821, 327 ff... 
origin of term, ii. 314-318. 

“ Logos doctrine, iii, B12 Ff. , 3274. 
Use of Synoptic narratives, iii. 264 £. 
Use of “we” in, ili. 208. 

View of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 412. 

View of G. E. Lessing, i. 404. 
John, Writings of— 

Author— 

(alleged) Cerinthus, ii. 389; iii. 

177, 200}. 

(traditional), iti. 199 f.49. 

View of Alogi, 111. 181, 1999, 200). 

View of Can. Mur., ili. 1999. 

View of Delff, iii. 230 ff.,,. 

View of Heracleon, iii. 199. 

View of Irenzeus, ili. 1999. 

View of Uchtritz, iii. 230 ff.,,. 
Carping criticism of, iil. 480f,, 484,. 
Date, i1. 186. 

Greek of, iii, 432 f., 435, 

Logos Doctrine, i lil. 31af, "327 431, 

434 f... 

Origin, iii. 175. 

Tradition concerning, iii. 174-206. 
“John,” Syriac “ History of, iti. 202),. 
John the Baptist— 

Disciples, 1ii. 322 f., 331 f.19, 368. 

in Fourth Gospel, ili. 255 £., 283 f... 

Luke’s account, iil. 62 ff. 

Preaching, ii. 539 f. 

Reference to, in Mark’s Gospel, ii. 

460. 

Teaching-— 

Kingdom of Heaven, ii. 539f., 

5683, 10° 
Work of, in Fourth Gospel, iii. 321 f., 
331, 
John of Ephesus, i ii, 435 ff. ; ii. 428 f. 
John Mark— 

see Mark. 

John, the Presbyter, ii. 
451 ff.45. 


394, 435 f, 


INDEX 


John, the Presbyter—continued. 
Alleged author Johannine writings, 
i, 230 ff.,,. 
Identity, ii. 435 ff, 451 f.45. 
View of Eusebius, ii. 436 f. 
Papias, witness of, to, 11. 487 f., 453, 4. 
Witness to Mark’s Gospel, ii, 435 fi 
45334. 
J oseph— 
Davidic descent, li. 533 f. 
Josephus— 
Antiquities— 
Christian interpolations, i. 142. 
Dedication of, ii. 81). 
Relation of Jude and 2 Peter to, 
li. 29114. 
Bell. Jud.— 
Language of, i. 9f., 263). 
Title of, iii. 81). 
Contr. Apion, dedication of, iil. 
81). 
in Rome, iil. 474 f. 
Knowledge of Greek, i. 63, ; iii. 94, 


1305. 

Knowledge of Luke’s work, ili. 134,. 

on Felix and Festus, iii. 469 ff. 

on Hellenes, i. 58,. 

on John the Baptist, iii. 184,. 

on Judas, the Galilean, iii. 97. 

on Quirinius, iii, 96f., 134,. 

on the Zealots, ii. 929,. 

Relation to Luke’s writings, iii. 99- 
100, 129-134,.,. 

Relation to religious life of his time, 
ii. 134,. 

Trustworthiness, ili. 451. 

Use of Hebrew and Aramaic, i. 


2611, 12 : 
Use of term Hebrew, i. 26). 
Writings of— 
Date, ii. 94 f. 
Greek of, i. 56. 
Judah the Nasi, i. 224, 62. 
Judaisers— 
in Galatia, i. 166 ff., 177f., 182 f. 
Success in Galatia, i. 169. 
Judas Barsabbas, i. 207f., 3 ii. 255. 
Judas, Bishop of Jerusalem, ii. 255 f.,, 
284). 
Judas, the Galilean, iti. 96, 97 ff. 
Judas (of) James, ii. 255,; iii. 213, 


224, 
Judas Iscariot, i. 255, ; iii, 213, 224,, 
S03 


the persons so named in the N.T., ii, 
238, 255 f.;, 


INDEX 


Jude, i. 105. 
Biographical notes, ii. 240 ff. 
Brother of Jesus, i. 104. 
Tradition concerning, ii. 268. 
Grandsons of, ii. 240, 2924, 5 
Relation to readers of his Hpistle, ii. 
241, 2428. 
Jude, Epistle of, ii. 238-262. 
Author, ii. 238 f., 255,, 256. 
Canonicity, i. 263. 
Date, ii. 254f., 286. 
False teachers, ii. 243-252, 2574, 
292 f.4.. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
Genuineness, li. 262-293. 
Proof of, i. 268 ff. 
Suspicions concerning the, ii. 
283 f.4. 
Libertines of, 11. 244. 
Not pseudepigraphic, i i. 262 f. 
Purpose, ii. 241 f., 256 f.,. 
Relation to the Antiquities of Josephus, 
ii, 29144. 
Relation to oso of Moses, ii. 
269, 288,. 
Relation to Book of Enoch, ii. 269 f., 
286 ff.;. 
Relation to Titerary works after 70 
A.D., ti. 279, 291 f.44. 
Relation to 2 Peter, ii. 211,, 2854. 
Various hypotheses of, li. 264- 
268. 
Traces in literature or the early 
Church, ii. 284 f.,. 
Use of Pauline writings, ii, 278 f. 
Use of prophecy of 2 Peter, ii. 
250. 


Junius, i. 391, 41893. 
Justification— 
by faith, i. 126 ff., 129 ff.,, 132. 
by works, it; 126 ff., 129 ff.7. 
Justin, i. 135, ; lil. 327). 
on the Fourth Gospel, rhs Hh 
182. 
on Pilate, iii. 352 f.45 
on relation of Mark ‘to preaching of 
Peter, ii. 4505. 
on Simon Magus, ii. 168, 172. 
on the Gospels, ii. 389. 
on the resurrection, 11, 129)7. 


Kepha, ii. 219 f. 
Kingdom of heaven— 
in Matt., 11. 540, 568, 49. 
Korah, i. 281. 
in the He of Jude, ii. 244f., 
257 £. 


505 


Laodicea, i. 448 f.,, 4525. 
Church of, ii. 138. 
Founded by LEpaphras, i. 441, 
449 f 


“3° 
Relation to Paul, i. 460 f. 
Laodicea, Council of, i. 477,. 
Laodiceans, Epistle to the, i. 160, 249,, 
480, 488,, 499f., 503, 535, ; 
ii. 13151, 285,, 295, 3065. 
Latin and Greek words used by Jesus, 
aa 
Latin technical terms— 

Used by Jews in Palestine, ii. 489. 
Laying on of hands, ii. 6, 23,, 91f., 98 f. 
Lazarus, iii. 262 f. 

Lebbeeus, ii . 255), 522 f.). 
Lectionaries, lll, 36; ¢. 
Leontopolis— 
Jewish temple in, ii. 333, 341,.. 
Letter writing (address, style, greeting), 
Ty (tens 
Leucius, lil. 88,7. 
Account of death of John, iii. 193f., 
2069. 

Knowledge of Fourth Gospel, iii. 177. 
Levi, ii. 506, 522 f.. 

Matthew identical with, ii. 506 f. 

see also Matthew. 
Libertines— 

in Corinthian Church, ii. 280 ff. 

of Jude, ii. 244, 278, 279 ff. 

of 2 Peter, ii. 225 f., 278, 279 ff. 

of Revelation, iii. 418. 

Linus, i. 205. 

First Bishop of Rome, ii. 1674. 
Literature, Early Christian— 

Character of, ii. 367 f. 

Logia, the, ii. 416, 579. 
of Matthew, ii. 509 ff. 
Logos, the, ili. 223f.,; ii. 312-321, 
3277 ff.4-3, 431, 434,. 
Origin of term, ii. 314-318. 
Logos Doctrine— 


in Johannine writings, iii. 431, 
434 f... 
Lois and Eunice, li, 22 f.4. 
Lord’s Prayer— 


Early use of, ii. 603. 

in Luke and Matt., 11. 559. 

Variant forms, ii. 603. 

Lord’s Supper, the— 

Heathen slanders concerning (Pliny), 
ili. 70. 

Ignatius on, and love feasts, ii. 2363. 

Institution— 

Date, view of Tiibingen School, 

iii, 275, 293)5. 


506 INDEX 


Lord’s Supper, the—continued. 
Tnstitution—continued. 
in Luke, iii. 69 f. 
Text of, iti, 39 ff.19. 

Codex D, ill. 4019. 

Didache, iii. 40,9. 

Latin MSS, iii. 4049. 

Marcion, 1ii. 399. 

Syriac versions, 111, 4049. 
Persons present, ili. 214, 227 f.yo. 
Place, ui. 447,, 492, 493. 

Variant forms, ii. 603. 
Meaning of the Church observance, 

iu. 276 f. 

Observance— 
Date — Anti - Quartodecimans, iii. 

Q74 f, 

Churches of Asia Minor, iii. 

273 f. 

John (apostle), iii. 275 ff. 
Paul, ii. 277, 279. 
Quartodecimans, iii. 278 ff. 
Western Church, iii. 277. 
RED ase in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
268 f. 


Lucian of Samosata, use of term Syrian, 
i, 234. 
Lucius of Cyrene, ii. 505; ; ili. 15, 28 f.g. 
Luke identified with, ii. 54. 
Luke (the evangelist), i. 440, 450 f.4. 
Acquaintance with material in Acts, 
iii. 148 ff. 
Author of Luke and Acts, iii. 1, 3. 
Biographical notes, ili. 51. 
Biography of, sources for, iii. 1 f. 
Identified with Lucius (Rom. xvi. 21), 
iii. 54. 
Identified with Lucius of Cyrene, 
iii. 54. 
in Philippi, iii. 56. 
in Rome, iii. 56, 102. 
in Rome, with Paul, ii. 2f. 
Knowledge of events recorded in 
Acts, ili. 127 ff. 
Knowledge of Mark and his Gospel, 
ii. 101 f. 
Knowledge of written Gospels, iii. 48 f. 
Nationality, view of Jerome, ili. 49. 
Native of Antioch, ili. 2, 5,4. 
Sources used by, iii. 94-142. 
Tradition concerning, and his work, 
iii, 1-8. 
Traditions concerning, iii. 6 f.. 
Use of names of Roman Provinces, 
i. 174£., 186 f.4. 
Luke, Gospel of (see also Historical 
Work of)— 


Luke, Gospel of—continued. 


Authorship ascribed to Luke by 
Early Church, iii. 1, 3. 
Chronological order of events lacking, 

iii. 64 ff., 89 f.yo. 
Compared with Gospel of Matt., ii. 
603 f. 


Dedication, ili. 42 f. 
Dependence on Mark, iii. 49 f., 101- 
Hebraisms in, ili. 104 f., 135,,. 
Israelitish tone of, iii. 91g. 
Jesus— 
Galilean ministry of, ii1. 106. 
Healing works of, iii. 146 ff. 
Joyful spirit in, iii. 76 f., 92o.. 
Marcion’s edition, iii. 22. 
Parallels to Mark, iii. 102 f. 
Parallels to Matt., iii. 110. 
Pragmatism, iii. 63 f. 
Prologue, scope of, iii. 53-61, 85 fo. 
Proper names in, 111, 90g. 
Prophecy of destruction of Jerusalem 
in, iii. 156 ff. 
Purpose, ii. 42 ff. 
Relation to Matthew, ili. 107-112. 
Relation to oral preaching of Paul, 
li. 299. 
Relation of, to Paul, ii. 387 f. 
Relation to Paul’s epistles, iii. 119 f. 
Sources, 101. 50 ff., 94-142. 
View of Feine, iii. 137,,. 
Source of material peculiar to, iii. 
13f 


Style, compared with Mark, iii. 104 f,, 
By, 136;g. 
Text, history of, ii. 24. 
Title lacking, iii. 41 f., 80f.,. 
Two-fold recension of— 
Theory of Blass, iii. 9, 22. 
Criticism of, 111. 22 ff. 
Western text, ili. 22 ff., 38-41 0-49. 


Luke, Historical work of— 


Aramaic and Hebrew words in, iii. 
108, 136;5, 13714. 
Author, iii. 95, 
and date, ili. 142-165. 
Familiarity with Greek technical 
medical terms, iii. 146 ff, 
160 ff.;. 
Chronology of, iii. 97 ff. 
Date, iii. 3, 7 fi, 95, 155 ff, 164 £43. 
Israelitish tone in, iii. 70, 9loo. 
Jesus, Teaching concerning, ili. 70 ff. 
Language and style, iii. 79, 920.. 
Medical terms in, ili, 82f.,, 146f, 
160 f.,. 


INDEX 


Luke, Historical work of—continued. 
Place of composition, iii. 7f.,, 159, 
165;>. 
Plan, iii. 59-68. 
Preface, plan and purpose, iii. 41. 
Proper names in, ili. 68, 90 f.go. 
Purpose, i. 42 ff., 61 f. 
Reference to contemporary events in, 
Ly OO, 5 
References to political history, iii. 68. 
Relation to Josephus, ii. 94-100, 
129-134)... 
Relation to Josephus— 
Krenkel on, iii. 129 f.,. 
Third Book, ili. 58 ff. 67£., 76. 
Title lacking, iii. 41f., 80f.,. 
Unity of, iii. 77 ff., 923. 
Lycaonia, i. 174 ff. 
Cities of, 1845. 
Lydia, i. 528, 533). 
Lysanias of Abilene, iii. 165,;. 
Lysias, ii. 101. 
Lystra, i. 191 f., ¢. 
Church organisation in, 1. 23;. 


Maccabean coins, i. 25,, 37. 

Maccabean revolt, i. 36f. 

Macedonia, i. 186,, 211 f.4, 532). 

Magi, the— 

Date of the visit to Bethlehem, early 

discussion, li. 527;. 

Malta, iii. 138 f.o9. 

Man of Sin [Lawlessness], i. 226 f., 229, 
238 ff.9. 


Mandeans, iil. 332). 
Maranatha, i. 304j9. 
Marcion— 
Apostolicon of, i. 152, 156f., 491. 
Date, i. 156 f. 
Edition of Luke, iii. 22. 
Gospel of, ii. 391, 445, ; ili. 894¢. 
Portions of Fourth Gospel in, iii. 
ie 
on the Gospels, ii. 390 f. 
Teachings, i. 118, 130)¢. 
Text of Romans, i. 379f., 396 ff... 
View concerning title of Epistle to 
the Ephesians, i. 480 f., 4885. 
View of Galatians, i. 243. 
Marcionitic Gospel, 11. 385;. 
Marcosians— 
Field of activity, 1. 135¢. 
Mark, i. 441f., 450,. 
Alleged author of Revelation, iii. 
428 f., 433 fio. 
Biographical notes, ii. 427-431, 445- 
4481-, 


507 


Mark—continued. 
Called “stump-fingered” (codoBoddk- 
TUNos), li. 428, 445 f.,4. 

Canon Muratori on, ii. 428f., 446,. 

Family, ii. 487. 

Founder of Church in Alexandria 

and Egypt, li. 159. 
Hebrew name, ii. 445,. 
House of, ii. 427, 429, 447 f.,. 
Household of, ii. 4938 f. 
in Antioch, ii. 429, 430 ; iii. 479. 
in Asia Minor, ii. 148 f., 431. 
in Cyprus, ii. 430. 
in Egypt, ii. 431, 4485. 
in Rome, ii. 601 f. 
in Rome, with Paul and Peter, ii. 
431. 

Knowledge of the Gospel history, ii. 
604 f. 

Knowledge of Jewish laws and cus- 
toms, ii. 488. 

Missionary activity, 11. 429f., 434. 

Mother of, ii. 427. 

Papias on, li. 427. 

Papias on relation of, to Peter, ii. 

438 ff. 

Peter, relation of, to Mark— 

John the Presbyter on, li. 442 f. 
Related to Barnabas, li. 428. 
Relation to Paul, i. 148 f. 

Relation to Paul and Barnabas, ii. 

427, 429 ff., 434. ; 

Relation to Peter, 11. 148, 394, 427, 

432, 434, 4455. 
Mark and his Gospel— 
Tradition regarding, li. 427-456. 
Mark, Gospel of— 
Agreement between Gospel of Matt. 
and, ii. 603, 608, 612,. 

Analysis, ii. 462-467. 

Aramaic words in, ii. 487f., 502,. 

Author, ii. 493 f. 

Relation of, to youth of xiv. 51, ii. 

491 f. 

Traditional view, ii. 487. 

Canon Muratori on, ii. 441 f. 

Chronological order lacking, ii. 498 f. 

Comparison of, with the tradition, 

li. 487-506. 
Conclusion, ii. 467 ff., 483,, ¢. 
Abrupt, explanation of, ii. 479 f. 
Comparisons of the conclusions, 
ii. 470f. 

in Textus Receptus, witnesses for, 
ii. 467 f., 483 f.,. 

Original, ii. 476 ff. 

Rohrbach on, ii. 485 f.g. 


508 INDEX 


Mark, Gospel of—continued. 
Conclusion—continued. 
Shorter form, witnesses for, 1. 
468 ff., 484,. 
Witness of Gospel of Peter to, i. 

483;. 

Date, ii. 479 f., 602. 

Dependence on Matthew, ii. 602, 
607 ff., 612 ff... 

Dependence on Peter, ili. 49. 

Direct discourse in, ii. 608 f. 

Early judgment concerning, ii. 439 f 

Greek of, Hebraic colouring, ii. 488, 
5025. 

Incomplete, iii. 50. 

John, the Presbyter, witness of, to, 
li. 435. 

Known early in Asia Minor, ii. 444. 

Latin technical terms in, ii. 489, 
508 f.4. 

Length, ll. 479, 4874. 

Literary character, ii. 606 f., 614). 

Luke dependent on, ii. 492; ii. 49f. 

Method in presentation of Gospel 
history, ii. 441 f. 

Narratives, character of, ii. 461 f., 


481 ff... 
Omits parts of the Gospel history, ii. 
604 ff. 
Origin— 
View of Clement of Alexandria, 
ii, 432 f., 448 f.9, 449 fro. 
View of Eusebius, ii. 432 f., 449 f.49. 
View of Irenzus, ii. 433. 
O.T. citations— 
Form, li. 609 ff. 616 fig 5, 6° 
Papias, witness of, 11. 434, 435, 438 ff., 
449 fas, 45013, 485s. 
Parables, ii. 464 f. 
Passages, parallel with Luke, iii. 102f. 
Place of composition, i. 450). 
Traditional view, li. 484, 449 f.,,, 
487. 
Plan, ii. 604 ff. 
Purpose, ii. 459, 461, 583, 604 ff. 
References to Peter in, ii. 497 f., 5065. 
Relation of Gospel of John to, il. 444. 
Relation to Peter’s discourses and 
preaching, ii. 387f, 484 f., 
450 f.15, 495 ff., 501, 
Justin on, i. 450 f.49. 
Papias on, ii. 438 ff. 
Relation to Luke, ii. 101-107, 
136 ff. 10°18* 
Relation to Matthew, ii. 601-617. 
Traditional view, 1. 601 f. 
Septuagint used in, ii, 610f, 


1 


Mark, Gospel of—continued. 
Style, ii. 457, 461 f., 481 f.,. 
Compared with Luke, iii. 104f., 
ibn pei 
Title, ii. 456-460, 480,. 
Title, plan and conclusion of, ii. 456- 
487 


Used by Cerinthus, ii. 444, 
Written for Western readers, ii. 489. 
Mark, Writings of— 
View of F. Hitzig, ii. 423.. 
Marriage in early Church, ii. 95. 
Patristic and modern views of, ii. 
125 f.4o. 
Mary (the Virgin)— 
Davidic descent, iii. 36;,. 
Reference to, in John, iii. 224, ena. 
Mary, mother of Mark, i. 427. 
Mary and Martha, iii. 262 f. 
Matthew (Apostle), ii. 581, 584. 
Biographical notes concerning, ii. 
507 f. 
Call of, ii. 507 f. 
Confusion of name with Matthias, ii, 
508, 524 fs. 
Early acquaintance with Jesus, ii. 
507 f., 524y. 
Identical with Levi, ii. 506 f. 
Literary activity, Papias’ witness to, 
1i. 509 ff., 525 f.,. 
Names of the evangelist, ii. 507, 
522 ff.,. 
Position in the lists of disciples, ii. 
506, 522 ff.;. 
Tradition regarding, and his Gospel, 
ii. 506-530, 
Matthew, Gospel of— 
Agreements between Gospel of Mark 
and, ii. 603, 608, 612;. 
Analysis, 11. 583-556, 
Author, ii. 506, 508 f., 581. 
Knowledge of the Gospel history, 
ii. 585, 600 £.,5. 
Nationality, ui. 561 £. 
Authorship, Apostolic— 
Objections to, 11. 590 fig, 
Traditional view— 
Dogmatic objections to, ii, 582 ff. 
Canonical, the, ii, 403. 
Canonicity of, ii, 301. 
Carried by Barthoiomew into India, 
ii, 385,, 517, 528,. 
Character, ii. 556f., 570 f. 
Characterisations of, 11. 5'70,,. 
Christian Church, conception of, in 
the, ii. 550 ff. 
Compared with Luke, ii, 603 f, 


INDEX 


Matthew, Gospel of—continued. 

Compared with the tradition, ii. 
570-601. 

Contents, plan and purpose, ii. 531- 
570. 

Date, ii. 392 ff, 522, 530, 571 ff, 
588, 602. 

Witness of Irenzeus to, ii. 522. 

“ Doublets” in, ii. 581 f., 598 ff.45. 
Gospel of the Hebrews, relation to 
the Heb. Matt., ii. 518 f. 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, relation to 
the Greek Matt., ii. 519. 

Greek Matt., origin, 11. 514f. 

Relation to Aramaic original, ii. 

576 ff., 591-597,43. 

a translation, 11. 594f.4. 

Translator of, li. 517, 527.4, 575f., 

579f. 

Witnesses to the, li. 515 f., 526f.;. 
Greek Translation— 

Date and place of, ii. 516 f. 
Hebraisms in, ii. 576 ff., 591-5977.4). 
Hebrew Matt., the, ii. 511 f., 515 ff. 

Disappearance of the, 11. 520f. 

in “ India,” ii. 517, 5287. 

Witness of Pantenus to, ii. 517 f. 
Hebrew names in, Transcription of, 

li. 5989. 
Hilgenfeld’s view concerning, ii. 414, 


Historical material in, ii. 559. 

in Syrian Church, 11. 529;. 

Jesus, discourses of, in, ii. 557 ff., 
584 f. 

Literary character, ii. 606 f. 

Narratives, Character of, ii. 583 f. 

Original language, ii. 530,, 573 f. 

Epiphanius on, ii. 519. 

Franz Delitzsch on, 11. 5305. 

Treneeus on, ii. 518, 528;. 

Jerome on, ii. 518 f., 529;. 

Origen on, ii. 517, 528,. 

Papias on, ii. 509f., 517f. 

O.T. Citations— 

Form, ii. 579f., 596 f.4,, 12, 611. 
O.T. Prophecy in, ii. 537 ff. 
Parallels to Luke, ii. 110. 

Place of composition, ii. 571 ff., 588). 

Purpose, ii. 544, 545, 560f., 570, 
583. 

Readers, ii. 521f., 528,, 561 f. 

Refrain in, il. 598 f.43. 

Relation to Luke, iii. 107-112. 

Relation to Mark, ii. 601-617. 

Traditional view, ii. 601 f. 
Septuagint in, ii. 610 f. 


509 


Matthew, Gospel of—continued. 


Teaching— 
Kingdom of heaven, ii. 
568s, 10° 
Parousia, ii. 571 f. 
Title, ii. 531 £f. 
Used by Epistle of Barnabas, ii. 515, 
526 £.,. 
Matthias, ii. 508, 524 f... 
Medical language of Luke, iii. 82 f.;, 
146f., 160 f.;. 
Menander, ii. 110, 129,7; iii. 349,. 
Mesopotamia— 
Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.3. 
Miletus, 11. 265. 
Miracles, Significance in Fourth Gos- 
pel, ii. 299f., 303 ff. 
Missionary preaching, i. 285 ff. 
Content, 11. 369-373, 377 ff.,... 
Crucifixion of Jesus, ii. 369. 


540, 


Resurrection of Jesus, ii. 369, 
3774. 

Words and deeds of Jesus, ii. 369 f., 
377 fh.. 


Scope, li. 587 f.;. 
to Jews and proselytes in Palestine— 
content, li. 369, 377. 
to Jews of the diaspora and Gen- 
tiles— 
content, 11. 369, 377 ff.., 3793. 
Mnason, i. 66, ; 11. 18. 
Modern Hebrew, works on, biblio- - 
graphy, i. 255. 
Montanists, 1. 405; u. 802f., 310f.,, ; 
Thos INA 
Moses, Assumption of— 
Quoted in Jude, 1i. 269, 288,. 
Muratorian Canon, see Canon Mura- 


tori. 

Muratorian Fragment, see Canon 
Muratori. 

Mystery of Lawlessness, i. 229, 236s, 
251s. 


Naassenes, ii. 116, 126;,, 129,,. 
Names in Philemon, Discussion of, i. 


Ge 
Narcissus, 1. 392, 41994. 
Nathanael, i. 31,,; 0. 517, 524), 528, ; 
iii. 210, 225,, 302. 
Navigation, Regulations in lst century, 
lil. 454. 
Nazarenes, ii. 74, 403, 518. 


Nazarenes (4th century), li. 264. 


Nazarenes, Aramaic Gospel of the— 
see Apocryphal Gospels. 
Nazareth, ii. 539, 


510 


Nazarites— 

Vow of abstinence from wine, i. 4734. 
Neapolis (in Macedonia), 1. 533. 
Nereus, i. 42054. 

Nero, ili. 410, 422,, 469 ff. 
Legend concerning (and Rev.), iii. 
436, 443 ff., 4475. 
Legend concerning (and 2 Thess.), 
i. 246 f., 2507, 2525, 19- 
Marriages, ill. 477. 
Persecution of Christians, ii. 57 f., 
61f., 68;, 71, 76£., 160, 170, 
185, 347 f. 
New Testament Canon, composition of, 
1, 124. 
New Testament Canon of Theodore of 
Mopsuestia, i. 123. 
New Testament Times, Chronology, 
lii. 481 ff. 
New Testament Writings— 

Chronology, ili. 481 ff. 

Synchronisms with general history, 
Bibliography, iii. 450 f. 

Jewish origin, i. 57. 

Literary dependence in, ii. 603 ff. 

Names in, a, 29 fees 

Text of, ii. 12 f. 

History, iii. 22 ff. 
N.T. Writings (Gospels excluded)— 

to Christians outside of Palestine, 

references in, to the Gospel 
story, 11. 379 ff.4. 

to Jewish Christians in Palestine, 

references in, to the Gospel 
story, ii. 383 f.;. 

Nicodemus, iii. 302 f., 3554¢. 

Nicolaiis, Nicolaitans, i. 497, 5154; ii. 
110, 129,,, 283 ; iii. 179, 197, 
417 ff., 426,,, 427)5. 

Teaching of, in the Churches of Asia 

Minor, ii. 292);. 

Nicopolis, ii. 48f., 53f.5. 

Novatian, ii. 303, 310f.,;. 


Officers of the Early Church— 
Functions, ii. 96 ff. 
Qualifications, ii. 32f., 90 ff. 
Old Latin Translation— 
Relation to original language of 
Gospel tradition, ii. 575. 
Old Testament citations— 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340, 354,;. 
in Mark, ii. 609 ff., 616 f.4, 5, 4. 
in Matthew, ii. 579f., 596 f.1,, 19, 
610f. 
in Pauline epistles, 1. 52. 
O.T. oral translation of, 1. 12, 234, 3329. 


INDEX 


O.T. Prophecy— 
Fulfilled in Gospel history, i. 
330 £.49- 
Onesimus, i. 489f., 444, 446,, 451f.,, 
453 f., 4565, 458, 494. 
Onesiphorus, ii. 2f., 19, 20), 68, 86. 
Oral translation— 
in the Early Christian Church, ii. 
511 ff. 
of O.T., i. 12, 234, 3399. 
Origen, i. 69;,. 
Eusebius on, i. 397;. 
Latin sermons attributed to, ii. 303, 
310 Reads 
on angelolatry of Jews, i. 475,. 
on “ Angels of the seven Churches,” 
ill. 423,. 
on chronological order of Gospels, 
li. 392 f., 398f.4, 7. 
on Ephesians, i. 482, 488 f.4. 
on Hebrews, ii. 299 ff., 309;. 
author, 11. 308;. 
on inscription of Acts xvii. 23, iil. 


on Paul’s missionary activity, i. 


on Peter’s missionary activity, ii. 
152,. 

Text of Acts, iii. 10, 33,5. 

Text of 1 John iv. 3, iii. 371g. 

Text of Rom., i. 379, 395, 406),. 

Witness to 2 and 3 John, iii. 185, 
203) 5. 


Palestine— 
Christianising of, i. 93. 
Greek Cities in, 1. 35 f. 
Greek language in, i. 35-46. 
Land of Israel, i. 75, 80,. 
Ptolemy’s division of, ii. 589,. 
Pallas, ili. 470 ff. 
Pantzenus— 
in India, ii. 517 f., 5276. 
on authorship of Heb., ii. 298. 
Teacher of Clement, ii. 308,. 
Papias— 
Biographical notes, ii. 5264. 
Date, ii. 436, 515. 
Designation of Christ, iii. 203,,. 
Disciple of Aristion, ii, 473. 
Disciple of John, iii. 175. 
Fragment (Latin) on Fourth Gospel, 
iii, 196 f.,. 
Fragments of, in Eusebius, ii. 435 ff., 
451 ff.45, 453 f.44. 
Interpretation -of Babylon (1 Pet. v. 
13), ii. 1685. 


INDEX fat 


Papias—continued. 

Interpretation of John’s testimony to 
Mark’s Gospel, ii. 501 f., 510 f. 

on Mark, ii. 394, 427, 434 ff, 449f.,,, 
450,11, 453,4, 4854, 499. 

Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 186). 


Pastoral Epistles, 11. 1-188—continued. 
Not inconsistent with Paul’s teach- 
ing, found elsewhere, ii. 119 ff. 
Patmos, iii. 408 f., 420,. 
Patrobas, i. 420.4. 
Paul— 


Witness to Gospels— 

View of Griesbach, ii. 405. 

View of Schleiermacher, ii. 411 f. 
Witness to John, iii. 178, 1963. 
Witness to John vii, 53-viii. 11, iii. 

3465. 
Witness to Matthew, ii. 509 ff., 511f., 


Witness to Revelation, iii. 182. 
Work of, the, ii. 436. 
Parousia, 11. 222, 237 f. 
in Gospels, i. 224,. 
in Matthew, ii. 571 f. 
in 2 Pet., ii. 273. 
in 1 Thess., i. 221 f. 
in Rev., iii. 396 f., 437 f. 
Reference to, in John xxi., lil. 243- 
247. 


Time of, ii. 2380. 
Parthia— 
Early missionary work in, ii. 163 f.,. 
Participial construction in N.T., in 
595 yo: 
Passion History— 
in Fourth Gospel, ii. 270 ff. 
in Synoptics, i. 278 f. 
Passion and Resurrection of Jesus— 
History in Matthew, i. 554 ff. 
Passover— 
Celebration of, iii. 282f., 294,,, 
296 ff.47. 
Last, of Jesus— 
Place of celebration, ii. 429, 447,, 
492, 493. 
Pastoral Epistles, ii. 1-133. 
Alleged interest in the organisation 
of the Church, ii. 93 f. 
Alleged late date, ii. 99-118. 
Baptismal formula in, ii. 119, 1319. 
Comparison with pseudepigraphical 
literature, 1. 1235. 
Date, ii. 118 f. 
érepodiOdokadot in, li. 126). 
False teachers in, ii. 99 ff. 
Linguistic character, ii. 121f, 
131 ff. 5;. 
Similarity of Romans to, i. 413;. 
Term, meaning, il. 55, 67). 
Unity of Christian doctrine and 
confession demanded in, ii. 
119 ff. 


of Acts, iii. 152 f. 

Address of, in Acts xxi. 37 ff., i. 42 f., 

Age, i. 457.. 

Alleged author of Hebrews, ii. 296, 
298 ff, 302. 

Antioch, work in, date, iii. 458f,, 
462 f 


(“ Apology ”) mpatn admonoyia, ii. 7 f., 
12 f. 

Apostle to the Gentiles, i. 353f., 
370 f 


"De 
Apostolic calling of, i. 353 f. 
Apostolic dignity, defence of, i. 
289. 
Aramaic, language of, i. 48 ff., 57. 
Asia— 
Danger in, i. 309, 318,, 321 f. 
Extent of work in, i. 449 f.,. 
Asia, Churches of, intercourse with, 
during Roman imprisonment, 
i. 16f. 
Asia Minor, ii. 148 f. 
Athens, i. 205. 
Journey from Bercea to, i. 214,. 
Biographical notes, 1. 48-54, 67, ; 
ii. 370f.; iii. 455-480. 
Ceesarea, i. 443, 444f., 451, ; 11. 16; 
iii. 473 f. 
Trial before Felix, date, iii. 476. 
Chronology of life and writings, 
iii. 481 ff. 
Churches founded by— 
Character of, ii. 136. 
in the provinces of Asia and 
Galatia, 11. 135 f. 
Churches of Colossee and Laodicea 
relation to, i. 460f. 
Churches under Paul’s jurisdiction, 
deel 
Care of, i, 206, 462 f. 
Citizenship, 1. 69,¢; li. 75f. 
Close of career, ii. 54-84. 
Bibliography, ii. 67 f.9. 
Collection journey (Acts xi. 30)— 
Date, iii. 456 ff. 
Conversion, in Acts compared with 
Epistles, 111. 121. 
Corinth, first visit, i. 256 f. 
Second visit, 1. 263, 271 jo, 271 f.15, 
27254. 
Krenkel’s view of, i. 2724. 


512 INDEX 


Paul—continued. 
Corinth—continued. 
Unrecorded visit, i. 307, 316,, 
3277 f. 
Work in, i. 232 f., 256 f., 259. 
Corinth, Church of— 
Charges Paul with fickleness, 
i, 321 ff, 343 fy. 
Lost correspondence with, i. 261, 


9° 
Date, i. 262. 
Lost epistle of Paul to, i. 263 f., 
307, 312 ff.,, 327 f. 
Identified with 1 Cor., i. 330 ff. 
Lost letter of, to Paul, i. 325. 
Crete, ii. 43 f., 106. 
Death of, iii. 479 f. 
Date, ii. 58. 
see also Martyrdom. 
Doctrine— 
Antichrist, i. 226 ff. 
Sources of, i. 227 ff., 236 f.4.¢. 
Asceticism, li. 332. 
Church, i. 503 f. 
exkAnoia in epistles, i. 504 f. 
Eschatology, i. 253). 
in 1 Thess., i. 221, 223 f.4. 
Justification, i. 124, 129 ff.,, 1325. 
Misinterpretations of, 11. 275, 290, 9. 
prep ee ricod by Gnostics, 1. 
125 
Significance of Christ i in, i. 509 ff. 
Ephesus, i. 194, 199, ; iii. 331)». 
Church of, "and Paul, i. 483f., 
489 f.,. 
Epistles of 
Agreement of Acts with, iii, 150 f. 
Circulation, ii. 275 f. 


in the first century, li. 125, 


14094. 
Criticism of, Review, i. 152-164. 
Date, i. 156 ff. 


Development of thought in, i. 


200 f. 
Genuineness, i. 156-162. 
Genuineness, Views regarding— 
Bauer, i. 155, 163, 
Baur, i. 154f., 163,. 
Dutch School, i. 155 f., 163;, . 
Evanson, i. 154, 163). 
Hitzig, i. 156, 1636. 
Marcion, i. 152, 155, 156. 
Schleiermacher, i. 154, 1635. 
Semler, i. 156. 


‘Tradition of Church, i. 152, 


154. 
Weisse, i. 156, 163,. 


Paul—continued. 


Epistles of—continued. 

How written, i. 234,, 249 f.,. 

Influence of, in Apostolic Church, 
i. 161f. 

Jesus, name for, in, ii. 353 f. 

Jesus’ words and deeds, reference 
to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ff.5 4. 

Lost Epistle to readers of 2 Peter, 
ii. 198f., 209, 227, 274 f., 277. 

Places where written, li. 162,. 

Preliminary critical remarks, i. 
152-164. 

Readers, ii. 227 ff. 

Relation of Acts to, iii. 118-126, 
139 £.5, 

Relation to y ames, 1. 132. 

Relation to 1 Peter, i. 161. 

Spurious, i. 160f., 164,. 

Style and thought of, 11. 353. 

the First Roman imprisonment, i. 
439-563. 

Thought, form, and language of, 
compared with that of He- 
brews, 11. 353 f. 

Three oldest, 1. 152-255. 

Titles, i. 486. 

“We” in, i. 203, 209 f.s. 

Writing of the, i. 172 f.4. 

Epistolary style, characteristics, i 
500, 516 f.,. 
Family of, i. 68f.4,. 
Flight from Damascus-— 
Date, iii. 455. 
Galatia, i. 165 ff., 17]. 

Illness, i. 181. 

Ramsey’s theory, i. 171.. 

Visits to the churches of, i. 165, 


1713. 
Gospel, i. 353f., 357f., 412f.475 ii. 
Or. 
Origin, ii. 352. 
Preached, ii. 370 ff., 3795. 
Greek language and literature— 
Knowledge of, i. 51 £., 70,3, 71yo. 
Heb. O.T., knowledge of, i. 51, 


7047. 
History of — 
Data in, iii. 452 f. 
Synchronisms with general history, 
ili. 455-480, 
James’ doctrine, attitude to, i. 124, 
129 ff.;, 1325. 
J erusalem Collection, i. 200,. 
Jesus’ life, knowledge of facts of — 
Source, ii. 370 f., 378, 384,. 
Luke's Gospel, relation to, ii. 387 £, 


INDEX : 


’aul—continued. 


Mark, relation to, ii. 148 f., 427, 429f., 
445,. 
Martyrdom, ii. 165 ff... 
Date, ii. 66. 
Early tradition concerning, ii. 62, 


Not a victim of Nero’s persecution, 
ii. 57f., 685. 
Patristic testimony to, ii. 75 fl... 
Testimony of Clement to, ii. 
61 f. 
see Martyrdom of Peter and 
Paul. 
Missionary Career— 
Journeys in Asia Minor, Ramsay’s 
view, 1. 188 f.,. 
First journey, i. 176 f. 
Churches founded during, i. 
176 f., 191 f.,. 
in Acts compared with Epistles, 
ii. 122. 
Second journey in Galatia— 
in Acts compared with Epistles, 
ii 122 f. 
Method of work in 
265 f.4. 
Work in Asia Minor, ii. 137 f. 
Missionary preaching, i. 237,, 462, 
471 


cities, 1. 


1° 
Content, ii. 370 ff., 3795, 379 ff.4. 
“Gospel of Christ” in, ii. 370 ff. 
Jesus’ words and deeds in, refer- 
ence to, ii. 370 ff., 379 ff.3, 4. 
Principles, 1. 285 ff. 
Names, iii. 127, 1409. 
Origin, i. 70j¢. 
Nephew of, i. 50. 
Peter, parallelisms with, in Acts, iii. 
151 f., 1635. 
Pharisaism, 1. 50, 68), 3 i. 14093. 
Philippi, i. 522 ff. 
Church of, communications with, 
i. 524 ff. 
Lost correspondence with, i. 
526 ff, 535 f.g. 
Relation to, i. 212;. 
Philippians, Epistle to the— 
Condition when writing, i. 527 ff., 
539-556; ii. 13. 
Roman law, acquaintance with, in 
Galatians, i. 201 f.;. 
Rome— 
Arrival in, iii. 478. 
Imprisonment, First, ii. 1 f. 
Coptic fragments of the Acts of 
Paul on, ii. 83 f. 


VOL. III. 


513 


Paul—continued. 


Rome—continued. 

Imprisonment—continued. 

Evidences for activity after, 11. 
59 f 
Tradition concerning, in Cle- 
ment of Rome, i. 60ff, 
68 ff. ¢. 
Release from, li. 55 f. 
Expectation of, in Philippians, 
ii. 55 f. 
Probable order of events suc- 
ceeding, ii. 14 ff., 66 f. 
Testimony to, i. 63 ff. 
Imprisonment, Second, ii. 67. 
Intended visit to, i. 367 ff., 377). 
Purpose of, i. 355 ff., 371 f.5. 
Renewal of charges against Paul 
in, ii. 57, 684. 
Residence in, 1. 444 f., 451,, 539 ff. ; 
Te fhe ile takes 
Trial, 1. 540 ff., 542 ff. ; 11.4 ff, 13f. 
Date, ii. 57 f. 
Voyage to, ili. 454. 
Rome, Church of— 

Acquaintance with, i. 352, 428. 
Sanhedrin letter to, language, i. 10. 
Septuagint, Quotations from, i. 52. 
Sister of, i. 50. 

Spain, ii. 161 f. 
Journey to, ii. 10, 12, 61 ff. 
Testimony of Acts of Paul to, ii. 
6 


3. 

Testimony of Acts of Peter to, 
li. 63. 

Testimony of Canon Muratori 
to, il. 62 ff, 73 ff.-. 

Proposed visit to, i. 367 ff., 377). 
Bpporta are leadings of, i. 555, ; iii. 

16 f. 


Thessalonica, i. 203. 

Timothy, relation to, ii. 34f. 

Titus, communication of, to Paul, ii. 
46 f 


Training, i. 53f., 67f.455 ii. 22f.4. 

Troas, i. 16 f. 

Use of names of Roman Provinces, 
i. 175, 185 ff.4. 

Use of plural by, i. 354, 369,. 

Use of terms apostles and prophets, 
i. 505 f. 

Use of term Evangelist, i. 507 f. 


Paul and the Jewish law, iii. 152 f. 


and the Jewish Synagogues, ii. 137 f. 
and the Roman government, ili. 75 f. 
and the readers of 2 Peter, ii. 208. 


| Paul, Acts of, i, 69353 ii, 1704. 


33 


8I4 INDEX 


Pella, Flight of Jews to, ii. 572, 588f.,; | Peter—continued. 
iii. 159, First Epistle of—continued. 
Pentecost, Place of, ii. 429, 44'7,. Readers and author— 
Pergamum, iil. 411, 420 f... Internal evidence, ii. 134-158. 
Church of, iii. 410 f., 417 f. Readers, not Jewish Christians, ii. 
Pericopes, the Church, iii. 36,. 136-142. 
Persecutions of Christians— Gentile Christian Churches ix 


in Asiatic churches, 90-100 A.D., iil. 
409 ff. 
Mentioned in 1 Peter, ii. 179 ff., 184 f. 
Nature of, in Ist century, ii. 180f., 
1897. 
Under Nero, 11. 185. 
Peter, iii. 213, 224,. 
Alleged daughter of, ii. 164. 
at trial of Jesus, ili. 271. 
Attitude toward Jewish and Gentile 
Christians, 11. 276. 
Confession of, ii. 550 f. 
Death, ii. 160, 165 ff.4, 214; iii. 479 £. 
Date, ii. 160, 1704, 255. 
in Acts of Paul, i. 214, 
in Acts of Peter, ii. 214. 

Prophecy concerning, iii, 241 f. 
Discourses of, in Acts, compared with 
1 Peter, ii. 173 f., 186). 

Epistles of— 
Canonicity, 11. 2845. 
Comparison of, i. 197, 271 ff., 
289 f.g. 
Genuineness, ii. 262-293. 
Resemblances between the, ii. 271, 
289 f.9. 
First Epistle of, ii. 134-194. 
Alleged purpose, ii. 174 f. 
Author, an eyewitness, ii. 147, 
155 fi. 
Author, relation to readers, ii. 
145 f., 148, 154f.,. 
Author’s description of himself, ii. 
146 ff. 


Canonicity, ii. 263 f. 

Character, ii. 173 ff. 

Compared with discourses of Peter 
in Acts, ii. 178 f., 1869. 

Date, i. 128, 161; ii. 148f., 151,, 
160 ff,, 177. 

Genuineness, ii. 1738-194. 

External evidence, ii. 173, 185f.,. 
Greetings of, ii. 148. 

Persecutions of Christians men- 
tioned in, i. 179 ff. 

Ramsey’s view of, ii. 190 f.5. 
Persons addressed in, ii. 134. 
Place of writing, 1.161; 11. 158f., 

162-1735.4. 
Purpose, ii. 145 f. 


Asia Minor, ii. 142-145. 
View of Kiihl, ii. 1525. 
View of Origen and Greek 
Church, ii. 136 f., 1525. 
View of B. Weiss, 11. 1525. 
Relation to Ephesians, ii. 176 ff. 
186f.4, 275 f. 
Relation to James, i. 128, 133 f.,: 
ii. 175 f., 1865. 
Relation to Pauline Epistles, i. 
161; ii. 176 ff., 185 ff.,. 
Relation to Romans, ii. 176ff, 
187 f.4, 275 £. 
Silvanus, writer, not author of, ii 
148 ff, 157 f.15, 174, 176. 
Time and place, il. 158-173. 
Title, ii. 297. 
Second Epistle of— 
Apologetic tone of, ii. 223. 
Apostleship of Peter in, li. 273 f. 
Author and readers of, ii. 194-221 
Author, ii. 232. 
An eyewitness, ii. 203 f., 215 f.,. 
Relation toreaders, ii. 201ff., 208 f 
Self-designation, ii. 271. 
Canonicity, 1. 263 f. 
Circulation, 11. 264. 
Date, ii. 209 f., 237, 255, 278, 286, 
False teachers of, ii. 224 ff., 231 
232 f.y, 292 fas. 
Character, ii. 279-283. 
Origin, li, 226 f. 
Genuineness, ii. 262 f., 271-283. 
Suspicions concerning, ii. 283 f., 
Occasion, ii. 221-238, 231 f. 
Parousia in, 11. 2738. 
Expectation of, ii. 222, 230f. 
Pauline epistles, reference to, ii 
274 £., 29040. 
Polemical note, ii. 222. 
Purpose, li. 195. 
Readers, ii. 202, 205f., 207 ff. 
226ff,, 264. 
Missionaries to the, ii. 208 ff., 208 
Relation to Paul, ii. 203. 
Relation to the Antiquities o 
Josephus, ii. 29144. 
Relation to the extra Biblica 
writings of the Karly Church 
ii. 264, 


INDEX 


Peter—continued. 
Second Epistle of—continued. 
Relation to Jude, ii. 211, 250, 285,. 
Various hypotheses of, ii. 264— 
268. 
Relation to Jude 4, 17f.; ii. 285 f.,. 
Relation to literary works after 70 
A.D., li. 279, 291 £44. 
Relation to the “Shepherd of 
Hermas,” ii. 284 f.5. 
Spirit, ii. 274. 
Style, i. 271. 
Title, ii. 297. 
Traces in literature of the Early 
Church, ii. 284,. 
Transfiguration, ii. 274. 
Father’s name, i. 173. 
Flight from Jerusalem, iii. 457. 
Galilean origin, i. 27}3. 
in Corinth, 1. 302 f.1o. 
in Pontus, i li. 154 f.7. 
in Rome, ii. 159 ff, 163 f.5, 164 ff.4, 
210. 
Alleged Roman episcopate of, ii. 
160, 167 £.4. 
Witnesses for, 11. 165 ff... 
Acts of Peter, 11. 166 f.4. 
Clement of Rome, ii. 1654. 
Eusebius, ii. 167 f.4. 
Ignatius, ii. 165f.,4. 
Marcion, il. 1664. 
Papias, 11. 166,. 
Knowledge of Greek, i. 443. 
Lost Epistle of, to readers of 2 Peter, 
ii. 195, 197f., 231, 236,, 271 f. 
Martyrdom— 
Early tradition concerning, ii. 62, - 
78 fi.9. 
Manner, 1i. 169 f.4. 
Patristic testimony, 11. 75 ff... 
Testimony of Clement, ii. 61 f. 
Missionary activity, li. 159 f., 163 f.., 
443 £., 587). 
Name, i. 165, 
Aramaic form, i. 173; ii. 146, 155. 
Greek, 1. 64;o. 
in Galatians, li. 155,. 
Names used in 2 Peter, ; ii, 206, 219 f.9. 
Parallelisms with Paul in Acts, lil. 
151 f., 1635. 
Parousia, expectation of, ii. 230. 
Party of, 1. 289 ff. 
Preaching, relation to Mark’s Gospel, 
ii. 387 f., 434 f., 450f.,9, 495 ff. 
References to, in se Acts of Philip,” 
ii. 163,. 
References to, in Mark, ii. 497, 5065. 


515 


Peter—continued. 
Relation to Churches addressed in 
1 Peter, ii. 145 f., 148, 154 f.,. 
Relation to Mark, ii. 148, 394, 427 
432, 434, 445. 
Wife, views about, il, 157). 
Writings ascribed ‘to, i. 270. 
Peter and Corinthian "Parties, 1. 283 f., 
287 ff. 
Peter and Paul— 
Martyrdom, ii. 62 ff., 78 ff.9. 
Work and martyrdom of, in Rome, 
li. 165 ff.4. 
Peter and Paul’s Day, ii. 78 ff.9. 

Commemoration of, ii. 62, 78 ff.o. 
Peter, Acts of— 

Author, i. 4495. 

Gnostic teaching, ii. 270. 

on the Gospels, 11. 390. 

on Peter in Rome, ii. 166 f. 

on Simon Magus, ii. 168 f. 

on Transfiguration, li. 218,. 

Peter, Apocalypse of, 11. 270, 273. 
Peter, Epistle of, to James, 1i. 289. 

Author and date, ii. 289s. 

Peter, Gospel according to, ii. 270. 
Peter, Preaching (xjpuypa) of, i. 1674. 

Author, ii. 270, 273. 

Logos doctrine in, ii. 3274. 

on Colossians il. 8, 1. 475¢. 
Pharisees, i. 50; il. 258,. 

Attitude toward Christianity, a 

149. 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 338 f. 350 19- 
Name, i. 32y7. 
Pharisees and Sadducees— 
Attitude of Jesus to, in Matt., i 
549. 

Opposed to each other, i. 50. 
Philadelphia, Church of, iii. 410 f. 
Philaster— 

on author of Hebrews, ii. 308;. 

on Cerinthus, i. 5154. 

Philemon, i. 446f., 452 f., 458,. 
Philemon, Epistle to, i. 452-459. 

Authorship, i. 4563. 

Date, i. 4525. 

Genuineness, i. 457 f.,, 5. 

Various views concerning, 1. 458f... 

Names in, i. 458,. 

Relation to Ephesians, i. 493 ff. 

Time and place of composition, i. 

439-452. 
Philetus, ii. 215, 109 f., 1297. 
Philip, the Apostle, i. 46 ; ili. 210, 213, 
2244, 302, 3509. 
Greek name, i. 63}. 


516 


Philip, the Evangelist, i. 45, 443 ; imi. 
9257, 412. 
in Asia Minor, i. 448; iii. 9257, 3505, 
358, 3705. 
Daughters of, i. 17. 
Philip, Acts of, 11. 1633. 
Philippi, 1. 522, 532 f.). 
Jews in, i. 522f. 
Philippi, Church of— 
Care of Paul, i. 212;. 
Communications with Paul, i. 524 ff. 
Composition, i. 523. 
Condition at writing of Epistle to 
the Philippians, i. 529 f. 
Jewish Christian preachers in, i. 
530 ff. 


Lost correspondence with, i. 526f,, 


+3: 
Philippians, Epistle to the— 
Alleged composite character of, i. 560, 
562 fi.;. 
Alleged motive for forgery of, i. 
558 f. 
Date, i. 548f., 555 f.s. 
Epistolary style, i. 560,. 
Genuineness, i. 556-564. 
View of Baur, i. 556 ff., 5615. 
View of Hitzig, i. 556 ff., 561s. 
View of Tiibingen School, i. 556- 
559, 560 fy 5 4 
Hist. presuppositions and occasion, i. 
522-539. 
Occasion and purpose, i. 532. 
Paul’s condition at writing, i. 527 ff. 
Valentinian Gnosticism in, i. 557. 
View of Volter, i. 560, 561 f.,, 562 ff.;. 
Philo— 
Hebrews, relation to, ii. 364f.,;. 
Logos speculation of, ii. 317 f. 
Use of Greek, i. 56, 595. 
Use of Hebrew, i. 67,5. 
Phlegon, i. 420.4; li. 169. 
Phrygia, i. 1843. 
Phygelus, li. 3, 213. 
Pilaitewat 1488, 502f..5 in. 71, 75, 
352 fro. 
Pilate, Acts of, ili. 35249. 


Pilate, Apocalyptic literature of, ii. 
375 


Pisidia, i. 184 ffs, 4. 
Pliny, the Elder— 
on Galatia, i. 184 f. 
Pliny, the Younger— 
Correspondence with Trajan, ii. 
178 f., 1895. 
Epistles of, ii. 178, 180. 
on Christians in Pontus, ii. 152). 


INDEX 


Plural, used by author to designat 
himself, i. 171,, 209f.,, 30% 
3163, 4563; i. 354, 365 ; i 
357. 
Poetry in Nea 1; 52, 7119, 118;. 
Politarch, i. 2114. 
Polycarp— 
Bishop of Smyrna, iii. 412 f. 
Disciple of John, ii. 435f.; ui. 172 
191 f., 20459, o4. 
in Rome, ii. 192. 
Martyrdom, iii. 416f., 4265. 
on Pauline Epistles to the Philip 
plans, 1. 535. 
Witness to 1 Peter, ii. 173, 185f.,. 
Polycrates of Ephesus— 
on John of Ephesus, ili. 20557, 231f. 
Use of pdprus, li. 20597. 
Pontus, ii. 151 f.3. 
Christians in, ii. 151 f.. 
Churches in, character of, ii. 136 f. 
Peter in, ii. 154f.,. 
Porphyry, ii. 611. 
Pretorium, i. 641 f., 551 ff... 
Preaching, Christian— 
Source of, ii. 379. 
Preaching, Missionary— 
see Missionary Preaching. 
Presbyter, ii. 23,, 33 ff., 91f., 124 f..-5. 
Priests— 
Abstinence from wine, i. 473,. 
Priscilla— 
see also Aquila. 
in Corinth, i. 257, 2654. 
in Ephesus, i. 262. 
Priscilla and Aquila, ii. 19. 
in Romans, i. 389 ff., 417.53. 
Prochorus, iii. 88,7. 
Author of Acta Jo., iii. 1974. 
on John, ili. 198, 202,,. 
Proclus (Proculus), ti. 3114). 
Prologues, Old Latin— 
on order of Gospels, ii. 400,. 
to Acts, iii. 7,. 
to John, iii. 1964. 
to Mark, ii. 400,, 445,. 
Prophecy, Prophet, i. 116, 207,, 227 f. 
237,, 505 £.; iii. 385 ff, 402 £.. 
in the Christian Church, ii. 97 f. 
110ff., 230, 286,53; ii. Ié 
385 ff., 402 f... 
in Jude, ii. 248 f. 
in Revelation, iii. 437 ff. 
Prophecy, N.T., iii. 437. 
Prophecy, 0.T.— 
Agreement of history of Jesus with 
in Matt., ii. 5387 ff, 567, 


INDEX 


Prophecy, O.T.—continued. 
Fulfilment in Fourth Gospel, iii. 
30 Lage. 
Fulfilled in Gospel history, iii. 
330 £.49. 
and the preaching of the Gospel 
among Gentiles, 11. 146. 
Prophet— 
Use of term by Paul, 1. 505 f. 
Proselytes— 
Jewish, 1. 61,. 
of the gate, i. 213,. 
Protevangelium of James— 
Date of, 11. 375. 
Pseudepigraphic writings, i. 140, 144, 
7 
Character of, ii. 123,. 
Pseudo-Clementine Literature— 
Relation to James, i. 136,. 
Pseudo- Petrine writings, ii. 
289.. 
Publius, iti. 13995. 
Pudens, ii. 21,. 
Punic language, ii. 13999. 


270, 


Quartodecimans, iii. 193, 273 ff. 
Quirinius— 
Governor of Syria, iil. 96 ff., 130 f.,, 
134,. 


Rabbis— 
Attitude towards Greek, i. 62 f.g. 
Zeal for Hebrew, i. 40. 
Reading of books in antiquity, ii. 373f,, 
3855. 
Resurrection— 
see Passion and R. 
Revelation of John, the— 
Analysis, ii. 392-401. 
Antichrist, iii, 399f., 488f, 441f., 
4465. 
Number of, i. 238f.; ii. 444 ff, 


447 fet 5° 
Author, iti. 387 f., 428-435. 
Name and nationality, ii. 428, 
433, 433,. 
References to himself, iii. 
403 f.,. 

Tradition on, iii. 180. 

View of Justin, iii. 182, 201jo. 
Beasts in, i. 439 ff., 4465. 
Circulation of, iii. 182 f. 

Date, iii. 183, 201 f.,4, 412, 413, 417, 
420, 433, 438f., 444. 

View of Irenzeus, iii. 183, 201 f.44. 

False teaching and practice, iii. 417-ff., 
423-427 ,.5. 


391, 


517 


Revelation of John, the—continued. 
Greek style of, compared with other 
Johannine Literature, iii. 
439 f., 435, 7. 
Hebrew words in, iii. 444, 
Interpretation— 
Contemporary 
Historical, 
Futurist, 
Nature of, iii. 384-389. 
Parousia in, ili. 437 f. 
Prophecies in, iii. 437 ff. 
Purpose, iii. 384, 390. 
Readers, i1i. 390. 
Condition, iii. 408-427. 
Reference to Caligula, iii. 
449,. 
References to Nero, iii. 436, 448 ff. 
Reference to Roman Empire, iii. 
441 f., 4475. 
Relation of 2 Thess. to, i. 2507. 
Seals, the Seven, iti. 394 ff., 406,. 
Sources— 
Critical discussions, iii. 407 f.4,. 
Structure, ii. 389-401. 
Teaching, ii. 431f., 484f.,. 
Title, iii. 391, 403f.,. 
Unity, lil. 401, 407 ergs 
Visions In— 
Materials of, iii, 436 f. 
Nature, iii. 385 f. 
Origin, iii. 384 f., 392, 402). 
Witness of Epistle of Barnabas to, 
ili. 183. 
Witness of Papias to, iii. 182. 
Rolls, Scripture, ii. 392 f., 398. 
Roman citizenship, i. 69}. 
Roman Emperors, mention of, in N.T., 
i. 24149. 
Roman Empire, in 2 Thess., i. 229f., 
238 


i. 436-449. 


445, 


9° 
Roman Officials, Titles of, iii. 81. 
Romans, Epistle to the— 
Benedictions in, i. 408 ff.,5. 
Contents and progress of thought, i. 
352-378. 

Date, 1.377), 434f. 

Doxology in, 1. 379 ff., 396,-412,,. 
Evidence (external) for, 1. 380 ff. 
Evidence (internal) for, i. 382 ff. 
Genuineness, i. 385 ff. 

Hypotheses regarding, 1. 385. 

Origen’s testimony regarding, i. 
379 f., 396 ff.g. 

Position, explanation of, i. 384f., 
Alive 

Position in Liturgies, i. 410),. 


518 


Romans, Epistle to the—continued. 
Doxology in—continued. 
Position in MSS and versions, i. 
40L-£.5 6 $e 408 fhgs, 4101.4,. 
Position with Patristic writers, 1. 
405, 
Hebrews, relation of, to, 11. 365. 
Integrity, i. 378-421. 
Marcion’s text, i. 379f., 396 ff... 
Occasion, 1, 434-438, 
Readers, 1. 3753. 
Nationality, i. 3723. 
Relation of 1 Peter to, u. 
187 £.,, 275 f, 
Relation to James, i. 126 ff., 132). 
Salutation, i, 352 f. 
Salutations in, i. 387 ff. 
Schott’s view, 1. 438). 
Similarity to Pastoral Epistles, i. 
41317 
Text known to Ephrem, i. 405,, 472 
Vulgate MSS— 
Capitula in, i. 398 ff... 
Rome— 
Bishops of, ii. 1674. 
Burning of, ii. 68;. 
Church of— 
Absence of Judaisers in, i. 425 f. 
Asceticism in, ii. 346. 
Ascetic party in, 1. 366, 376 f.19. 
Character of, in 58 A.D, 11. 345 f. 
Conditions, 11. 350, 359. 
Constituency of, i. 421-427, 429, 
429). 
Views regarding, i. 431 f.4. 
Grouping in membership of, i. 
430). 
Jewish, predominantly, i. 
421 f. 
Missionary activity of, ii. 349. 
Nationality of members, i. 375,. 
Origin, i. 129, 352, 427-429, 


176 ff., 


Parties in, 1: 
406 fir. 
Paul’s acquaintance with, i. 352, 

428 


365 ff, 376 fir, 


Paul’s intended visit to, i. 367 ff, 


TT 
Purpose of, i. 355 ff. 371 fig. 

Relation to churches in Asia 
Minor, ii. 148 f. 

Relation to the Jewish Synagogues, 
ii, 359.. 

Government of— 

Attempts to suppress Christianity, 

ii. 178 £., 189,. 


3755, 


INDEX 


Rome—continued. 
Jewish epitaphs in, i. 6733, 6744. 
Jews expelled from, iii. 466 f. 
Jews in, 1. 47, 6715 
Peter in, i. 159 ff, 163 £. -g, 164 ffy. 
Date, ii. 160 f., 166, 170. 
Synagogues i a als ATE. ; j ll. 359¢. 
Variant preachers in, i. 542 ff., 557 f. 
Rome See daughter of Peter, ii. 
1643. 


Rufus, i. 392, 42054; ii. 489f., 504,. 


Sabians, iii. 332;o. 
Sadducees, i. 50. 

Attitude toward Christianity, iii. 149. 

see also Pharisees. 
Saints— 

Meaning of term, ii. 257s. 

Salome, mother of John, ui. 187, 190, 
20403. 
Samaria— 
Greeks in, 1. 35. 
Jesus in, iti. 3325. 
Samaritans, ii. 326). 

Language of, i. 5. 

Sanhedrin, the, iii. 339, 350). 
Sardis, Bishop of, iil. 416, 425 f.,. 
Satan, Synagogue of, iii. 410f., 421,. 
Saul = Hebrew name of Paul, i. 50. 
Saul = Paul, iii. 127, 140,,. 
Scripture rolls, ii. 392 f., 398,. 
Scriptures— 

Form in which written, ii. 392 f. 
Scythian Christians, ii, 152). 
Secundus, i. 2095, 213,. 

Semitic idioms in Hebrews, ii. 36h 
Septuagint, i. 46, 56. 
Paul familiar with, i, 52. 
Quoted in Gospels, i. 610. 
% ~~ -9),-: Hebrews, i. 36135. 
» 9» John, Wi. 354,,. 
” Matt., il. B79f, O96Ta7, 12: 
Serapion of Antioch, i ii. 1645. 
Sergius Paulus, iii. 149. 

Proconsul of Cyprus, ili. 463 ff. 
Sermon on the Mount— 

in Luke, iti. 112. 

in Matt., ii. 542 ff., 

ie: 

Position in Matt., ii. 557. 

The two recensions, ii. 605. 

“ Seventy,” the, iii. 78, 9207. 
Seventy Disciples, the, ii. 1644, 4455. 
Shepherd of Hermas, the— 

Authorship of, Eusebius on, ili. 4,. 

Relation of 2 Peter to, ii. 284 f. Mas 
Sibyllines, i, 252». 


544, 558 f.5 iii, 


: 
; 


1 


| Silas = Silvanus, i. 


INDEX 


203 f., 207 f.,, 
O00 fg: i. 17, 8%, 1426, 
160). 

Accompanying Paul on second mis- 
slonary journey, i. 176 f., 178 f. 

Character, ii. 151. 

in Asia Minor, i. 149. 

Name, i. 31 f.4,. 

Preaching of, 1. 237.. 

Prophet, 1. 237... 

Relation to churches in Asia Minor, 


li. 149 ff. 

Work of, in vicinity of Corinth, i. 
2655. 

Writer of 1 Peter, ii. 149 ff., 157 f.,0, 
174, 176. 


Simeon (cousin of Jesus), i. 240 f. 
Simeon = Peter, ii. 206, 218 f... 
Simeon, Rabbi, 1. 62.». 

Simon Magus— 

in Clementine Romance, li. 170 f.,. 

in Rome, ii. 839, 168 ff. 

Contest with Peter, li. 63, 74. 
Simon Niger, i. 505,. 
Simon of Cyrene, i. 392; ii. 489f., 
505;. 

and his sons, i. 66)». 

Sinope, Episcopates of, 1. 152). 
Sirach— 

Greek trans. of, i. 46. 

Language of, i. 6. 

Use of, in James, 1. 12149. 

Smyrna, Church of, iii. 410 f., 416 f. 

Angel of, ii. 416. 

Origin, ili. 412 f. 

Sodom, ii. 398, 4065. 

“Son of God,” iii. 309 f. 

Sopater, Sosipater, i. 2092, 2134, 41759 ; 
lii. 31 fig. 

Sosthenes, i. 258, 267 f.,. 

Soter, Bishop of Rome, ii. 75. 

Spain— 

Journey of Paul to, i. 367 ff.; ii. 61. 
Evidence of Acts of Peter, ii. 63. 
Evidence of Canon Muratori, ii. 

62 ff., 73 ff.,. 
Paul in, ii. 161 f., 1664. 
Spirit— 
Work of, in early Church, ili. 385, 
402 


2° 
Spiritual gifts, i. 279 ff., 297,. 
Stephanas, i. 260, 2664, 269g. 
Sychar, iii. 351). 
Symmachus, ii. 5639. 
Synagogue, i. 94f.. j 
Christian preaching permitted in, 
1, 99¢. 


519 


Synagogue—continued. 
Gentiles in, 1. 212 fig. 
Language used in, i. 339. 
Services, 1. 212,. 
Synagogues in Rome, i. 47 f.; 11. 359,. 
Relation of Roman Church to, i. 
359s. 
Synagogue in Thessalonica— 
Paul began work in, i. 204, 212,. 
Synoptic Gospels, the— 
Choice of material in, iii. 165-171,171). 
Interrelation of— 
View of Augustine, ii. 402, 422.. 
Views of early Church writers, ii. 
291 Fie 


4 
View of G. HK. Lessing, ii. 408 f.,, 
422, 
see Synoptic Problem. 
Jesus— 
Discourses compared with dis- 


courses in Fourth Gospel, ii. 
344, 354, 
Jerusalem visits of, in, iii. 167 f. 

Purpose, ii. 166 f. 

Relation of Fourth Gospel to, iii. 
254-298, 306 £. 

Relation to the traditions concerning 
Jesus’ deeds and words current 
in Apostolic Church, ii. 372. , 

Synoptic Problem— 

Facts to be used in a solution of the, 
li. 401 f. 

History of, ii. 400-427. 

Hypothesis of Bruno Bauer, ii. 
407, 4245. 

Hypothesis of F. Chr. Baur, ii. 
412 ff, 425 f.45. 

Hypothesis of J. G. Hichhorn, ii. 404, 


“6° 
Hypothesis of J. C. L. Gieseler, ii. 
408 ff., 424 £.4). 
Hypothesis of J. J. Griesbach, ii. 
405, 423,. 
Hypothesis of G. Herder, ii. 405 ff., 
423 


Hypothesis of Hilgenfeld, ii. 414, 
42 


13° 

Hypothesis of Holsten, ii. 414, 
425 f.1. 

Hypothesis of J. Holtzmann, ii. 
415 ff. 426,4. 

Hypothesis of J. L. Hug, ii. 408, 


424,49. 
Hypothesis of G. E. Lessing, ii. 
403 f., 422;, | 
Hypothesis of A. Ritschl, ii. 414, 
4264. 


520 


Synoptic Problem—continued. 
Hypothesis of Schleiermacher, ii. 
411£,, 42549. 
Hypothesis of G. Chr. Storr, ii. 407, 
423 


8° 

Hypothesis of K. Veit, ii. 410 f., 
42541 

Hypothesis ‘of G. Volkmar, ii. 407, 
424,. 

Hypothesis of B. Weiss, ii. 417f., 


5B 
Hypothesis of Chr. H. Weisse, ii. 
414, 4261, 
Hypothesis of C. Weizsicker, ii. 417, 


Hypothesis of Wendling, ii. 426f.,4. 

Hypothesis of G. Wetzel, u. 410, 
4251, 

Hypothesis ‘of Chr. G. Wilke, i. 407, 


Origin, ii. 401 f. 
Results of the investigation of the, 
ii. 418. 
Syntyche, i. 530, 533,, 561 f.,. 
Syriac or Aramaic, 1. 22 f.,, 36. 
Syriac translations— 
Relation to the original language of 
the Gospel tradition, 11. 575. 
Syrian Church, Canon of, ii. 263, 


Tabitha, iii. 137,,4. 
Tacitus— 
on Christians, ii. 185, 191 f.,9, 618. 
on earthquake in Laodicea, i. 449. 
on Neronian persecution of Chris- 
tians, 11, 57, 62. 
on Roman officials in Palestine, iii. 
470. 
Trustworthiness, iii. 451. 
Targums— 
Origin of the, ii. 515. 
Tarsus, 1. 49. 
Centre of Gr. culture, i. 53 f., 71go. 
Tatian— 
Diatessaron of, ii. 401, 421,. 
Order of twelve disciples in, ii. 
522). 
Witness for John xxi. 24f,, iii. 250,. 
Witness for Mark xvi. 9-20, ii. 468. 
Witness for text of Lucan writings, 
ili. 22. 
Teaching in the early Church, ii. 96 f. 
Compensation for, ii. 127 f.45. 
“Teaching of Addai,” ii. 1643, 167, ; iii. 
467 


“Teaching of the Apostles” Syriac, ii. 
164 f.. 


INDEX 


Temple, Bilingual inscriptions in, i. 


Temple Cultus— 
Alleged ignorance of, in Hebrews, ii. 
361 ff.44 
Tertullian— 
Contra Marcion, 1. 487). 
on Apostolic letters, i. 213. 
on Hebrews, li. 295, 301 f. 
on Marcion’s text of Romans, i. 397. 
on Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, i. 
76 f. 
Translation of 2 Thess, ii. 6f., i. 
2385. 
Witness to text of Eph. i. 1, i. 481, 
488.3. 
Textual Criticism, Canon of, ii. 477, 
4865. 
Thaddeus, Missionary activity of, ii. 
164. 
Thecle, Acta, i. 181. 
Theodore of Mopsuestia— 
Com. on Philemon, i. 446). 
on Angelolatry, 1. 476. 
on Authorship of Heb., ii. 309,. 
on John xxi. 24f.,, iil. 250. 2 
on John’s residence in Ephesus, i, 


4905. 
N.T. Canon adopted by, i. 128. 
Theodotians, ii. 302, 3105. 
Theophilus of Ceesarea, ili. 6,. 
Theophilus of Luke i. 3, ui. 2, 5f.,, 
42f,, 58. 
Thessalonians, Epistles to the— 
Authorship of, i. 203, 209 f.,. 
Resemblances between, i. 
253 £4). 
Thessalonians, First Epistle to the— 
Analysis, i. 215-224. 
Apologetic purpose, i. 216 ff. 
Baur’s view, 1. 248 f.,. 
Date, i. 206 f., 215, 233. 
Eschatology, i. 221, 223f.,. 
Genuineness, i. 242-255, 
Proof of, i, 2494. 
Occasion and purpose, i. 215 f. 
Place of composition, i. 205 f., 233. 
Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— 
Analysis, i. 224-242, 
Antichrist in, i. 227 ff., 236 ff.4-9. 
Authorship, i. 224 f., 233 f.,. 
Spitta’s hypothesis, i. 234, 237,. 
Date and place, various views on, 
i, 231 ff, 2414). 
Dependence on Rey., 1. 250,. 
Eschatology, i. 226-231. 
Source of, i. 227f., 236 f.4, 2375. 


244 ff, 


INDEX 


Thessalonians, Second Epistle to the— 
continued. 

Genuineness, i. 242-255, 247. 
Nero legend in, i. 250,, 2525, 49. 
Occasion, i. 2345. 
Place of composition, i. 233. 
Purpose, 1. 226. 

Thessalonica, i. 203 f., 211 f.4, 213,. 


Membership, i. 204, 212 f.,. 
Moral condition of, 1. 220f., 2233. 
Origin and history, i, 203-215. 
Persecution of, i. 204 f., 215 f., 222,, 
225. 
Jews in, i. 204, 
Theudas, ii. 132 fig. 
Third person, use of, in ancient litera- 
ture, 111. 86),. 
Thomas, iii. 213, 224,, 302. 
Missionary activity of, 1. 1645. 
Thomas of Heraclea— 
Gr. MS. of N.T. used by, iii. 273. 
Text of Luke used by, iii. 10. 
Thyatira, Angel of, iii. 416. 
Church of, iii. 417f., 419, 426). 
Tiberias, Lake, iii. 324, 333,,. 
Tiberius Alexander, iii. 460 f. 
Tiberius— 
Death, date, iii, 481. 
Timothy, i. 440; ii. 
142f., 159f.,. 
Age of, li. 38. 
Cireumcision of, i. 182; iii. 152. 
Conversion, il. 6. 
Episcopate of, in Ephesus, 1i. 41¢. 
Eusebius on, iii. 44. 
Eschatological views of, i. 2375. 
Home of, 1. 2095. 
in Corinth— 
Work in vicinity, i. 2655. 
in Ephesus— 
Work in city, il. 
41 


2 ite > ili. 8710, 


29 ff, 34f, 


6° 
Work outside city, ii. 33 f. 
in Macedonia, i. 203 f., 209 f.g. 
in Philippi, i. 523f., 547. 
Joint author of Epistle to Colos- 


sians, 1. 456, 

Joint author of Epistle to Philemon, 
1. 4565. 

Location of, at writing of 1 Timothy, 
ii. 27 ff. 


Location of, when 2 Timothy was 
written, ii. 18f., 26 f.19. 

Pastoral office in Asia, i 11-89 f- 

Picture of, in 1 and 2 Timothy, ii. 
88 f, 


521 


Timothy—continued. 
Relation to Church of Antioch, ii.357,. 
Relation to Paul, ii. 6f., 23,, 34 f. 
Reports Macedonian work to Galatia, 
1.198; 
Training of, 11. 6, 22 f.4. 
Work of, mentioned in 1 Timothy, 
ii. 29 ff. 
in 2 Timothy, ii. 29f. 
Timothy, First Epistle to— 
Date, i. 35 ff. 
Facts attested by the, ii. 27-42. 
Lack of personal greetings in, ii. 42,. 
Occasion, li. 28 f. 
Personal notices in, ii. 35. 
Place of composition, ii. 27 ff. 
Relation to Epistle to Titus, ii. 52. 
Timothy, Second Epistle to— 
Date, 1i. 37, 66. 
Facts presupposed by the, ii. 1-27. 
Timothy and ‘Titus, Epistles to— 
Alleged forgery of, motives for the, 
i. 89-118. 
a. Regulation of the life of the 
Church, ii. 89-99. 
b. Opposition to certain doctrinal 
errors, li. 99-118. 
Alleged interest in the organisation 
of the Church, ii. 93 f. 
Date, ii. 118 f. 
Alleged late, ii. 99-118. 
False teachers of, ii. 99 ff. 
Genuineness, 11. 85-133. 
Argument for, ii. 85 ff. 
Denial of, 11. 85, 122 f.,. 
see also Pastoral Epistles, 
Title of a book, Ancient usage, iii. 81,. 
Titles of books, ii. 458 f. 
Titles of Roman officials, iii. 813. 
Titus, i. 208 f., ; lil. 28o, 142 f., 160,. 
Circumcision of, iii. 124 f. 
Communication to Paul, ii. 46 f. 
in Corinth, i. 308 f. 
in Crete, Episcopate, Eusebius on, 
ili. 44. 
Pastoral office, 11, 48, 53, 89 f. 
Work, ii. 45 ff. 
in Dalmatia, ii. 11f. 
Journey to Dalmatia, ii. 48. 
Location of, when Epistle to, was 
written, ii. 43. 
Titus, Epistle to— 
Date, ii. 50 ff. 
Facts presupposed by the, ii. 48-54. 
Genuineness— 
see Timothy and Titus, Epistles to, 
Relation to 1 Timothy, ii. 52. 


522 


Titus Justus, i. 2664. 
“ Tractatus Origines de libris ss. scrip- 
turarum,” ii, 303, 310 f.,. 
Trajan’s correspondence with Pliny, ii. 
178, 1895. 
Transfiguration, the— 
in “ Acts of John,” ii. 2186. 
in “ Acts of Peter,” ii. 218,. 
in 2 Peter, ii. 216 ff.,, 274. 
Synoptic account of, 11. 274. 
Witnesses of, ii. 204, 215 f.,, 495. 
Trophimus, ii. 88. 
in Miletus, ii. 14f., 265. 
Tryphena, i. 393, 41994. 
“ Twelve,” the, ii. 78f., 213, 2275. 
Training, ii. 463 f. 
Twelve tribes, i. 74 ff., 784. 
Tychicus, i. 439f., 441; 1. 48, 87. 


Urbanus, i. 393, 41954. 


Valentinus, Valentinians— 
Doctrine of aidves and mAnpepa, 1. 
515 fig; ii. 128,45 iii. 176. 
Relation to Eph. and Col., i. 498 f. 
Doctrine of codia, i. 557. 


INDEX 


Valentinus, Valentinians—continued. 
Estimate of Fourth Gospel, iii. 176, 
3274, 349,. 
“Hyvangelium veritatis” of, ii. 389. 
Gospel used by, ii. 456,,. 
on the Gospels, 11. 389 f. 
Versions— 
Relation to the original language of 
the Gospel tradition, 1i. 574 ff. 


“Wer 
Use of, in Paul’s Epistles, i. 203, 
209 f.5. 
Widows in the early Church, ii, 33, 
94f 


Worship, Christian, i. 326f., 514. 
Year, the calendar, i. 319;. 


Zaccheeus, ii. 138;¢. 
Zachariah, son of Jehoiada, ii, 589 f.;. 
Zealots— 
Greek term used by Luke, iii. 929,. 
Party of the, ili. 77, 78, 929,. 
Zebedee, iti. 187. 
Sons of, ili. 187 f., 20439, 91, 2283. 
Zenas, i. 49, 54,4. 
Zotikos iii. 416, 425 fg. 


PATRISTIC AND OTHER EXTRA-BIBLICAL WRITINGS, 


(Only the passages which are cited in full or discussed in the text or notes 
are here indexed.) 


Acta SS. Jun. v. 411 ff., 423¢., ii. 76. 
Acta Thecle xiv., li. 129)7. 
Ambrosiaster am Gal. ii. 1ff., 11. 27f.,. 
Augustine de consensu Hv. i. 2, 4, 5, il. 


3° 
Can. Mur., lines 1, 6, ii. 446,. 
lines 9-16, iii. 197,. 
Clement of Alex., Helog. Proph. 2'7, iii. 


85s. 
Hypotyp. ‘(in Eus. H. £. vi. 14. 5), ii. 
400, 


9° 
Hypotyp. on 1 Pet. v. 13, li. 4485. 
in Eus. H. £. vi. 14. 7, iii. 197,. 
Peed. ii. 16, ii. 524 f. 
Quis Dives xlii., ii. 41, 5 iii. 205. 
Strom. vii. 106, 11. 455;5. 
Clement of Rome— 

1 Cor. v. 1, ii. 68 f.g. 

eel, i, 184, 

XxXvill. 2 ff, i. 135,. 

xIvii., i. 2989, 342. 

lxy,, 1. 2693. 


Clementine Literature— 
Recogn. x. 71, iii. 55. 
Didache i. 2, iii. 35,5. 
xi. 3-6, iii. 381). 
Dio Cassius lx. 6. 6, iii. 466 f. 
Dionysius of Corinth— 
in Eus. H. EH. ii. 25. 8, ii. 75s. 
in Eus. H. FE, vii. 25. 6-13, iti. 434,. 
in Eus. H. £. vii. 25. 15, iti, 488 f£.,. 
Epiphan. Her. li. 4, ii. 399.. 
li. 12, iii. 197 fg. 
Eusebius, H.*H. ii, 15, ii. 44959, 4534. 
I, Qe Ot Tee 
ii. 25. 7, ii. 825. 
li, 25. 8, ii, 755. 
iii, 24. 6, ii, 403, 528,. 
li. 39. 4, 7, U1. 452 f..5. 
139014 £, i. 453 £..,. 
ili. 39. 16, 1. 509-515, 525 f.,. 
iv. 14, 6, ili. 20454. 
v. 8. 2, ii, 398, 
v. 8. 6, iii. 201),. 


INDEX 


Eusebius, H. E.—continued. 
vi. 14. 2 ff., ii. 308,. 
Vi. 14. 5 £, ii. 4009, 4485. 
Vi, 14. 7, 111. 1975. 
vi. 25. 3, ii. 397,. 
vi. 25. 11-14, ii. 309,. 
vii. 25. 6-13, iii. 4344. 
vill. 25. 15, ii. 433 fi. 
an Ps. laavatt., i. 5287. 
Quest. ad Marinum, 11. 528,. 
Theoph. (Syr.) iv. 7, 1. 80g. 
v. dl, li. 773. 
Hippolytus, Refut. vii. 30, i. 4454. 
Ignatius, Magn. vill. 2, iil. 3274. 
Rom. x. 1, 11. 15749. 
Smyrn. vi. 1, i. 522). 
Trenzeus ii. 1. 1, 11. 215,, 398,, 528, ; 
iil, 77. 
iii. 3. 4 (Kus. iv. 14. 6), iii. 204,,. 
rohig Tithe ihe suited KS yi 
lil. 11. 7, 11.-456;,, 528,. 
v. 30. 1, iii. 448 f.,. 
v. 30. 3, iii. 201,4. 
Jerome, contra Pelag. ii. 15, i. 484f.,. 
Ep. ad Philem. 28, i. 68;¢. 
in Eph. wii. 5, i. 4059. 
Vir. Ill. ix., Ui. 203;. 


523 


Josephus, Ant. xviii. 5. 2, i. 134,. 
xix. 5, 2-3, iii. 466 f. 
xix. 12, iii, 133,. 
xx. 2. 1 ff., il. 460 f. 
MX Ose lyons Ante gs 
xx. 5. 2, ii. 460 f. 
xx. 8. 6, 111. 133. 
Bell. ii. 13. 5, ii. 183,. 
iii. 10, 1, ii. 33344. 
Justin, Dal. xxiil., li. 5633. 
1xxxi., lil. 2014p. 
CVi., 11. 450 fi.zo. 
Mart. Polyc. xix. 1, ui. 4265. 
Papais (in Eus. A, E. iii. 39. 16), il. 
509-515, 525 f.4. 
Plutarch, Vita Cw. xxix., ii. 5044. 
Polycarp, ad Phil. ili. 2, 1. 5353. 
Polycrates (Eus, iii. 31. 3, v. 24. 3), iii. 


27° 
Suetonius, Claudius xxv., i. 433 f.g. 
Symeon Metaphrastes in Acta SS. Jun. 
Vedi, 4293 cx weGes 
Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, 11. 470. 
Tertullian, contra Marc. i. 1, ii. 487). 
lv. 5, 11. 45145. 
v. 17, i. 4883. 


ANEW TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 


INDEXES. 


MartTrHEw. 
iii. 265 f. 


li. 


i. 
i. 


i. 
i. 
il. 
i. 537 f. 
il. 
i. 
i. 
i. 
il. 
i. 


531 f., 562). 


li. 5638p. 
il. 
i. 


533 ff, 5644. 
537, 565 ff.;. 
537, 562). 
529,. 

576 f., 592s. 
537, 567. 
578, 5925. 


5275. 

539. 

5906. 
568,, 596 ,, 600; 5. 
540, 5685. 

611, 617. 


ili. 111f. 


i, 40, 586,, 5930. 
ie 613, ; ili. 


137s. 


541 £, 545, 
i. 541, 
i. 6138p. 
i. B77 £, 5894. 
. 6145. 


542 ff., 


605 ; ii 112. 


i. 59510 

i, 542 f., 5685. 

. 543, 568, 585 f.,. 
. 59519. 

i. 59449. 

. 659. 

i. 603. 

. 601. 

. 59440. 
Clos. 

Sy 
SUAS Lv. 
iii, 110f, 


544 f. 


1 


558 f., 


an 


> 


MarrHoew—continued. 
ii. 588,. 


vill. 7 

villi. 18-ix. 34 
Wile 

vill. 27 . 

ix. 1-8 . 


xiii. : 
xill. 140-15 
xiii. 


Sov es ete 
XVite Lavon 
aS Villette ete 
XVll. 24-27 . 


il. 


545, 583 £., 600, 4. 


iil. 2044. 


gis 
i . 6139. 
. 612). 
, 5245. 
i. 586. 
i. BOD,9. 
i. 545, 558, 


613 fay. 


578. 


. 558. 

i. 600}: 

i. 587). 
eaavive 
mODG: 

ii. 546 ff. 

. 546. 

i. 612, 6175. 
ah 


59419. 


ill, wae 


il. 
i. 548, 

i. 59719. 

i. 59613, 59719. 
614.5. 

ii. 590,. 


INDEX 


MarrnEw— continued. 


XVilil. 15-20 
xix. 1=3 

aD. t 

sae, DAES 

xx. 28 3 
xx. 29-34 . 
xk doxxv. 46 
Rodel 16). 


Rr. BaSx xii 46 


xxi, 28-32. 
Kxdeioe ve 
Mxieioo es 
xxonel a1 
xxil. 7 
xxi. 14, 
Toc! « 
Roe HAT. . 
Xxill. 35 
Sox Oy 
SKI Ve- Olly 
SOM Galore 
xxiv. 20 
KVL xX KVL e 
XVI GUS). 


xxvi. 15, 25, , 60 


XXV1. 18 

<XVi ol 

xxv. 57 

SKVIS 2. 
XXvi. 6. 
SeMVATS Os 
xxvii. 16 ff. 
Xxvu. 46 
xxvii. 51 ff. 
xxvil. 51-53 . 
XXVil. 62-66 . 
XXvili. 1 : 
xxviii. 11-15 . 
xxvii. 15 . 
XXvili. 18-20 . 


i. 550 f. 

i. 591,. 

li. 572, 5894. 
i. 1573. 

ili, 12. 

i. 552. 

i. 553 f. 

Li, 2914. 

li. 608, 6163. 
ii. 553. 

11. 593y9. 

ul. 608. 

il. 587). 

u. 553. 

ii. 515, 526 fis. 
1. 569 f.49. 

ii. 271. 

i. 573, 589f.,. 
ill, 17383. 

li. 5885. 

li. 600,3. 

11. 586). 

li. 554 ff. 

ili. 286 f.g. 

i. 554, 

i, 494. 

ll. 616,. 

lil. 29234. 

ii. 502. 

li. 577. 

ai ee 59710. 
i. 569); 

ih, dla 3 ii. 578. 
li. 591,. 

ui. 555. 

ii. 555. 

li. 5964 . 

ii. 555. 


Mark. 
li. 373, 3779, 456 ff., 


ree 

ii, 460, 609, 611, 
612 fi». 

ii. 460f. 

ii. 6135. 

ii, 496 £., 506,. 

ii. 497. 

ii. 613,. 


~ ii, 6135. 


ii, 612). 


561. 
ii. 382,, 557 £., 591g. 


525 


MarKk—continued. 


VENER Gs 
vill. 35, 38. 
xl : 
ie, NG} 

TXe Ld 

ix. 41 

ix, 48 

Xt lees ars 
Seely 
Xoioo-. 

x. 35-40 


xi. 12-14, 20-25 . 


Nay Sent 37. 
Sem 
x1. 29 . 
Ets 
Sob, P10 y: 
px Tee ae 
X1v. 3-9 
xaivelo 
Svea 4. 
<ivee Gee 
SV 
XLV ee 
xiv. 49 . 
Xliyeo Lele 


rahe tl f 
xly. 58 . 
XV.k 


xv. 16, Blass on . 


xv. 21 


xv. 28 
xv. 34 


li. 507, 5221.5. 

ll. 5245. 

u. 500, 6135. 

iil. 13714 

uu. 497, 506,. 

i. 490, 523f., 3 iil. 
188. 

il. 616¢. 

u. 490. 

u. 501. 

uu. 614 f.5. 

i. 5033, 590¢. 

11. 6145. 

lll. 286;. 

i. 490, 6155. 

i. 561. 

u. 577, 

i. 578. 

i. 499. 

i. 499 f. 

li. 216 ff. 

u. 494 f, 

11. 500. 

1. 6164. 

1. 5894. 

i. 499. 

ill. 204). 

ill. 194 f.. 

il. 495 f. 

li. 5033. 

li. 29149. 

ll. 6164. 

ii. 608, 6163, 

i. 608. 


ii, 429, 447,, 493 f. 
ii. 505,. 
ii, 492 f, 


ii. 489, 502 f.3 3 ili. 
271. 

ii. 5044. 

i, 392; ii 489f,, 
5045, 5055. 

ii. 6164. 

i, 153; ii, 6165. 


526 


INDEX 


MarKx—continued. 


XVi locus il. 
xvi. 8, Conclusion 

of Mark’s Gospel ii. 
SOE ISH lenge Mme 
RVI O = ie eee see tls 


Relation to Mark ii. 
xvi. 14-18, Origin 
Oli Gh clon See ell. 


555. 


467, 469. 
607. 
467 f., 
iii. 12. 
475 f. 


483 fs ; 


471-475, 484, 
485 fg. 


LUKE. 

i-ii., Source of 

traditions in . iii. 112f. 
TRAbkig ees OO ae aia opie 
re li, 278, 376; ii 

45 £., 82 f., 

i. 1-2 iii. 44, 82f.5 «4 
i, 1-4 . . i. 41-56. 

eran’ Mode cies cil, 53-61, 85 f.49 
i.2 ee ii 49,78, 84, 
i. 3 es O07 Sg. 
peed ei 5. us 4A 
i 4 . i, 42f., 82, 
Tati ec ili, 132,. 
1. 26. lil, 35 f.46 
100 te lil. 371, 
it. 1 = iii. 70. 
dee Sere iii. 68, 77. 
ii. 1-8 lil 77, 96, 130, 
ii. 4f. lil 36i¢ 
bia fie lil, 37, .. 
iii. 2. iii. 77. 
iii. 4. li. 617,. 
ii. 4-6 . lii. 70. 
EEO So ae be 
Tits UG Ty Gn, OUR EO 


FILO Dem nice wer.) Ad, 


TS ORE, poe ee een Ob 
inyl, OER toy age eres Gimbal 


486, 3 iii. 38 f. “19° 


3617 
71, “01. 


Thy, TSI toes een 13714 

iy. 14f.. lii. 65, 88 f.4g, LO6 £. 
iv. 37 ii. 824. 

iv. 38 f. iii, 147. 

iv. 44 lili. 64, 88 fiz, 
Vals ili. 333,4. 

v. 20, 23 ll, 612;. 

v. 27. li. 523,. 

v. 29. li. 5245. 

vi. 4 ff. lil. 36 f.y7. 

vi. 10 lil. 137)5. 

vi. 13 iii. 78. 

vi. 15 Pa ed GMO ong: 

vi. 20-49 Pally, COB ai. U1: 
vii. 1-10 eill, 110; 


Luxe—contenued. 


vii. 2-10 
Nighy AF : 
vii. 36-50 . 
viii. 27 ff. 
vill. 43 . 
viii. 55 f. 
ix: 1l-17 
IX Oke 


Xvill. 11 
Xvlu. 25 
abe Ha 
SOM eo eae 
oa PAD 
xxi. 20-36. 
SEX who 
xxii. 16-20 
xxii, 17-20 
xxii. 51 
Xxill. 26-30 
SK, 42 £. < 
xxiv. 44-49 
xxiv. 44-53 
xxiv. 51 


Bate ede pede bed pede pele 
ps ek Taian ast yaaa 
bo 
w 


iii, 2919. 
i OTT x 
iii, 286 fg, 


iil. 169, “11 £. 
ii. 169, 1733. 
ll. 524,. 

Hi. Coe 

u. 586). 

il. ri 

iii. 162, 


iii. 30f 19, 119 £. 


iii. 1008 
ae ye oe 
iii. 53. 

iii. 58, 8714. 
‘i 8%... 


iii. 312-321, 326s, 
lil. 314, 
iii, 265 £, 
310 f. 
iii, 208 £., 223 £5, 
iii, 221 £., 310, 320, 
3265, 328,, 435,, 
iii, 312,'326,. 
iii, 255, 2845, 35049. 
iii. 321, 3311. 
. li, 617, 5 i. 35415. 
"+ iii, 283.5. 
iii, 3514). 


288, 


INDEX 527 


JoHN—continued. 


i B38. 
x. 85 


: vil. B3-viii. 11 


. 


ili. 354,,. 

iii, 284,. 

iii, 209-212, 214, 
226s. 

iii, 209f,, 224 f.,, 
308, 326). 

iii. 3505. 

iii, 345,. 

iii, 825, 

iii, 29149. 

iii, 3265. 

iii. 355,,. 

i O31.e: 

iii, 257 £. 

iii, 345). 

iii, 2265. 

iii, 324, 3329, 35] 1. 

iii. 355,49. 

{ii S26, S8eis, 


lil. 3265. 
iii. 258 ff. 
ili. 284 f.g. 
Hi. 2919. 

ili. 260,285f.,,333,,. 
1. Biss 111. 335,349., 
35313, 355, ¢. 

ill. 345 fu. 
iii. 345). 


iii. 324, 333, 4, 351,;. 


iii. 260 f., 286, 
ii. 301. 

lil. 269. 

lil. 354,,. 

ll. 4865. 

li. 4455. 

lll. 343. 

lil. 330,. 

lll. 348;. 

li. 4865. 

i. 539. 

ili. 338, 35119. 
li. 539. 

lil. 334, 3463. 
lll. 3263. 

ili. 327 f.,. 

li, 3585. 

ii. 261 ff. 

lil. 35245. 

ili. 281, 294 ff.1¢. 
ii. 524,, 

iii. 263, 286 ff... 
lil. 295, 6. 

lil. 354y5. 

ii. 338, 350g. 
ili, 267. 


JoHn—continued. 

XML KVL HXK ce il, LOS. 26det, 
288 ff. ¢. 

xiii 1-4... iii, 268, 288 ffi. 
x 120 298s 
LUD ALG US wee ee st eee Otten 
MULLS Mo eyes Soe LL OAs 
S12, 23 fit an eee ontaate 
Xi. 93 ‘ . A 4 ili. 213 ies 22710, 11: 
KIL oom een ae Lia 
SOMES O ig Ge i eee abt SHES 


e 


LVL On ey Nee eeoiioas 
DORYneH hss a Sg OU NL 

SQ MIAOHLLIC 9G Boke cath binacsy Lyle 
ROU PAS og i URL O9) 
Xvilil. 12-28 . . iii. 347f.,. 
Savruninelisy By | Qeaibli isi, 


ee 


XViil. 13-28... li . 270, 291 fen 
xviii. 15f.. . . iii, 215,228)5931,7. 


KV 20, COME gL S42 oan. 
xviii. 28. . . iti, 274, 282, 293,,. 
Sky UD Ee vane elses 


XIX, VSG ee los bane 
XIX LAT tee cena COD Meares 
XD Xn Ant  e TT OOM 
PED OAS Feb ope cous Slnlis GE 
KASD erie One 
PaO eA Sets) ee) Sho ac abt, PAs. 
pape PY A a wae 
pabeeoregw y co ren chil, Ov, Sali E} 

; ye. 2235 928f, °138,15,16° ~ 
abe GLOW ay Sal vps Duly Sally 
SP EIONE fle a) oe bbe ayls. 


X1RS Oley ese en eceee In LOGS: 

KXcu ss ae eee os 

Xx loo ee wes wales Osos 

DO AG ee el Ae ht) AAI 

RES ako. ew MLO: 

PoC EO sak eo vubh, DEB. 

xx. 30. iii. 232, 301, 303 f. 


4 
a 
wo 
_ 
= 
= 


iii. 207, 223,, 223,, 
308 ff. 
Ody BB oo obi, PSV byh 
<i 9 0) eerie sae 
Dean Nie 4 6 bln ClO. 
xxi ll... eae nen 
. . tii 240 £, 252,. 
SOO ISIS 5 oy vot Ab OBE 
xxi 18,19. . . iii. 241 ff, 253,. 
xxi. 20-23. . . iii, 240-247, 252f.,. 
POR OM. egy ay Ply 235 — 240, 
250 fly 5. 


‘si 
‘ai 
a) 
mS 
v 
= 
aI 
~ 
=] 
=] 


Acts of John and 

Pata PEt tS He 200 Eas 
Theodore of Mops. 

eehin oe oc ili. 333. 


INDEX 


Acts. 


Text of . 
Harnack’s criti- 
cism of the 8 
. text of 
x1. Oiintees 


xiii. 9 : 
xili, 23-29. 
xiv. 11-14. 
xiv. 28 ff. 
RV hake 
xv. 1-5 . 
xy. 1-33 

> Biel Tie oar 
xv. 20 

XV vie sits 


ii. 460; 1. 48, 54, 
59, 61, 85105 88y 6: 

ii. 429 3 iil. ale 9206, 
210. 

ii. 448 f.,. 

ii, 429, 447, ; iii. 
14143. 

i. 615. 

i. 138. 

ii. 77, 99. 

i. 12. 

iii, 132 fag. 

iii. 77, 96. 

604.6. Tay: 

iii, 294, 419. 

i. 66 f.49- 

i. 39, 60;. 

li. 30s. 

il. 13744. 

ili. 14053. 

i. 5B, 60 fig. 

i. 60¢. 

ii. 460. 

i. 605. 

iii. 55. 

iii. 478. 

Rees 

iii. 2, 14, 28,, 143. 

G4 


iii, 45. 

iid. 55. 

iii. 456 ff. 

iil. 68. 

iii. 29,. 

il. 456 ff. 

iii, 188, 194». 

iii. 15, 29,. 

i. 429, 4455, 447 f. “7 

li. 493. 

iii, 133,. 

ii, 445, 5 iii, 140.,, 
456. 


iii. 463 ff. 
oho 

li, 377. 

i. 180. 

iii. 478 f. 
ili, 153 ff. 
iii. 18, 32,,. 
lil. 124 f. 
lil. 149. 

1H, 18.95,98.05.8059) 
i. 131,. 


Acts—continued. 


xvil. 1 
Xvil. 2 
xv1l. 4 


Xvi. 


XVil. Lo 
KV oes 


XVii. 


Ry aces 
Xvill. 12-17 
xvill. 12 
Xvili. 13 
xvilul. 17 


Xvlil. 
XViil. 
XVill. 
XViil. 
Xvi. 


Xviil. 25 
XVill. 26 


XVili. 
mei 
xix. 
aD 
xix. 


XxX. 
XX. 
xx. 
XX. 
xx. 
xx. 
xX. 
XX. 
xX, 
XX. 
XX. 


Se 
Koel 
onl 
XXi. 


XX1. 


1 
1-7 
8-10 
23 ff. 
1-4 f. 
Syne 
Sites 
4f. 


oan 18 : 


te 14AGs ide 
134,. 

i. 19ff, 834.49, 
3513, 14, 15) L649. 


100, 


"176 £., 188 f.y. 
. 207). 

iii. 55, 8649. 

iii. 142 ff. 

i. 532;. 

i. 534). 

i. 533;. 

iii. 86 f.49. 


bee ee ete ete ete pe 
—_ 
Jol 
co 


ili. 467 f. 

iu. 68. 

1. 2675. 

1, 267¢. 

ii. 15, 16, 30 f.g. 
iii. 452. 

1. 177, 190. 
1. 262, 2700. 
TH... LZS- 

iil. 824, 331,90. 
iii. 82, 

1 270, 

i. 16, 30 f.,. 
+30 lif. 75. 

i. 199,. 

iii. 150, 163s. 
it. £5: 

eee aa Be 

iil. 56, 87,3. 
1. 2095 ; 111. 31 fig. 
li. 142 ff. 

ili, 3249. 

ii. 17 £, 3824p. 


INDEX 


Acts—continued. 


KID) | 
SIE SY(S.cun ey 
Xxi. Some 


16-22 


XXVIi.-XXVlil. . 


ill. 18 £., 34 fio. 


i. 50. 

iii. 469-478. 

ii. 403. 

iii. 76. 

1. 68,5. 

1. 60¢. 

ie bL ilo lites, 
138 f.g9, 142 ff. 


xxvii. 12 ill. 454. 
xxvii. 11 lil. 454. 
xxvill. 16. 3 BR mabe 
xxvii. 16-31 i. 451,. 
Xxvill. 21 . u. 57, “e 
XXV1l. 28 1. 27031 
xxvii. 30 f. i. 58. ' Ws DA Le 
RoMANS. 
tealoth. ie Sie 
sce 12879, 
ind 1. 354. 
THY 1 348i, S044 5 
431 £55. 
Evidence for év 
acs In). i. 394 ff... 
Te Beers 450): 
7 13-15. iE, B56. =< Sik 
15 i. 378, 3965, 4121. 
1 16f. oa a 1,357, 372 f.4. 
ii. 16, Marcionitic 
interpretation 
of : li. 385, 
i. 8. Te ABV, 
iv. 1ff i, 1264, 131 fy. 
Tyan eld 1. 374,. 
Vv. le i. 374,. 
Val ats j. 859 f. 
vals Ove li. 1884. 
vi, 15-23 eele ae 
Tipline, bs i. 861 f., 3753. 
viii, 15. i. 421 £. 
| ix. 1-12. li. 346. 
1xe tx, OO 1. 363 ff. 
Ix oes . li. 1884. 
Px 13 1. O70 Leg. 
xii. 19 li. 3655. 
| xiii. 1-7 i. 187): 
aif 10% i. 866, 376 f.9. 
Miveevon. 1 oo i 
VOL, Ill, 


529 


Romans—continued. 


xv. 1-13, Bauv’s 
view . 

Varo wee 

Soigy (Ee 

Vien meee 

KV. Loe. 


Faye OPA 


XV.-xvi., Genuine- 
ness of ae 

xv.-xvl., Litur- 
gical use of 

XV.-xvi., Patristic 
citation of . 

xvl1., Genuineness 
Ofer ce 

xvi. 1-16 ; 

5 aiple, Hypotheses 
of Vélter and 
Spitta 

xvi. 3 ff. 


XGiullg S133 
Xvi. 5 
Xvi. 6 
Ons th oo 
xvi. 8 ff. 
ils Ge 


14f. 
17 ff. 
24. 
20 eras 
25-27 . 


Xvi. 
XVi. 
XV. 
Xvi. 
Xvi, 


Relation of Jude 
24 f. to 
xvi. 27, Text of . 


1. 414 ff.y9. 

li. 587s 

1. 41549 

ap 435, 437 f.. 

i 186, 415 f. oRpalle 
74,. 

i: 877 fay more ts 
415 jo. 


i. 389 £. 
i. 41044. 
i. 400 £.,. 


aiGiog 
i. 393 f. 


i. 420 figs. 
i, . 380 ft. 
429). 

ii, 350 f. 
ii. 505,. 
i, 430, ; it. 504;. 


Th 41855 ; ill. 453. 

i dist. 

i, 392; ii, 489f, 
504. 


i. 430, 5 ii. 351. 

i, 425, 4305. 

i, 409;5. 

ii, 370, 3775 

is Baio: 
412, 6. 


3965- 


ii, 29145. 
i, 406,;. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


i. 282, 297 fig, 
Ste 

i, 298, 

i. 3033). 

ii. 382,. 

i, 288. 

i, 2964. 

i, 332 ff. 

i, 276. 

ii. 285;. 

i, 261, 2705, 322. 
i. 276. 

i, 2705; ii. 285,. 


34 


530 


INDEX 


1 CorINTHIANS-—continued. 


vil. 6 
vii. 10 
yin, 123 
Pls 
ix. 14 
XGeLOls 
Re awe 
x. 15-22 
Xow. 
xi. 19 
Keeani 


yebpal 
Xiv. 


vi. 14-vii. 1 
vi. 16 

yably (ane 
vin. 11 f. 
viii. 1-5 
vill. 6 

vill. 10. 
vili. 18 . 
Seo UN 
Soaal en le 
eens 

Ki 5 : 
> No 


i, 2965. 

ii, 382,. 

i. 296). 

ii, 208. 

ii, 3824. 

ii. 257, 

i, 2965. 

i, 296. 

i. 297. 

ii. 249, 

ii. 3804, 3824, 384, ; 
iii. 3949, 120. 

i, 297, : 

iii, 402 fig. 

i. 99¢. 

iis BES 50%. 

ii, 381, ; ili, 120. 

P2105: 

ii. 119. 

eres 

i. 175. 

i, 268. 

i. 812 4.,, 325. 

iii, 454. 

a, te 

i, 2695. 

i. 260, 269s. 

i. 13, 288, 303 ff... 


2 CoRINTHIANS. 


% 


i) 


i, 316 fig. 

i. 309, 318,. 

j. 321, 343 fu. 
ede. 

il. 59519. 

iii, 3305. 

i. 330 ff. 345 ff.,. 
17847 fg. 

i, 332 ff, 345 f., 
j, 343,. 

i, 3005. 

i. 349 fi. 

i, 2969. 

i. 335 f. 

i, 336, 348,. 

i, 320¢. 

i, 3454. 

i, 318 f,. 

ii. 385,; iii. 6£.g. 
i. 313 f,, 338 ff, 
i BOly: 

i, 294, 301 fig, 
1 BOB.S.45, 

i, 257, 


2 CortIntHiaNns—continued. 


xi, 32 lii. 14095. 
xii. 1-4. ili. 461 f. 
xii. 2 iii. 462, 478. 
5GUG ail, TAA ley 
26 Gal adi ail, L541: 
acre Ge Tole fae 
sane dite i. 344 f.4. 
saaynil he li. 260,,. 
onna bine 1. 27145. 
GALATIANS. 

Ngai ce i, 175 ff. 
p Bit Shs a oe i, 173;. 
i, 6-8, Marcionitic 

interpretation 

Of 4s eRe ak Obie 
iesids 1, W715, 1i25qab aes 

180. 

i 19. i. 109,. 
A102 iii, 124f., 153£. 
ii 1 i, 202, 3 lil, 28¢. 


ii. 1 ff, Ambrosi- 


aster on . Ts 2 fag: 
tie Uh ili. 452 f, 
EU COe Re 3 1. 178, 193,. 
ii. 6-10. th Love 
li. 7-9 ii. 208. 
Wisse li. 195, 
Te Ol oe i. 200,. 
diva doses is 165; L712, LSI. 
myn haste i. 172.3, 180. 
iv. 20 1, 194. 
Vv. 3 . 1 171 tie 
ar allie i. 181 f. 
vi. 11 Ll Oy Laas 
Vale i. 195, 199. 
EPHESIANS, 
Tee i, 481 ff, 488, 4, 


i. 1, Textof Jerome 

i. 1, Text of Mar- 
cion . Fee 

i. 1, Text of Origen 

i. 1, Text of Ter- 
tullian . : 

i. 1, Witness of 
MSS. 

ns eee 

ii, 11-22 

ili, 3-8 . 

LD. 

Vow lil : 

vi, Ai a 2 y a7 


517,. 
i, 482, 488 f.4. 


i. 481. 
i. 482, 488 fu. 


i. 481 f., 4885. 


i. 482. 

i. 509. 
ii, 186,. 
i. 507. 
ii, 239. 
i, 5054f, 
sf 490 ft, Ge 


INDEX 531 


PHILIPPIANS. 
Ieeoetiven a 1, 526, 534 f.5. 
194 «. i, 537— 541 f. 
relat 1. D4) fy 551 ii: 
Tai. 1, 542 f. 
i. 14-18 i. 543 £., 548, 
1. 15-18 moots 
1; 194 1. 5545. 
1. 19-26 1. 544f. 
t20 1-555,. 
i, 25 £, i. 545 £.,, 554 fig. 
ieee 1. 563;. 
eo — TOOT. 
ii. 14-18 1. 53864, 546. 
i. 19-24 i. 546 f. 


Ty O-2Se 4  e. 11. 66. 


Bits 1A thenets ma eeteeh ale 


GM il eirces, teks. h2b25, 580, Bade. 
Mite ae ELS DOS ta: 
Eee Ode ates el. HSO,: 
iv. 2. . i. 529, 587%, 559, 
Bolte 
iv. 15 i. 257, 5345. 
iv. 15f.. i. 5345. 
Py tect Gli cd 2123. 
iv. 22, 3h 550 teve 
CoLossIANS. 
ste i. 449 f., 
i. 14-23 1. 467. 
L265. i. 461, 471 f., 
1-5 i. 462, 472, 
ii. 10-15 i. 474 f.5. 
ii. 11 li. 382,. 
ii. 16 i. 472 f., 
li. 18 ff. i. 468 f. 
it, 18. i, 475¢. 
ii. 20. 1. 473;. 
ii. 23. i. 468 f., 478, 
Tiree t=) be 1. 469 f. 
iii. 11 id Ge MULAN 
nol Ge ey 3 v3. 1 Gos 
Te S— IV AGwe . ecole Os 
iva9 4 gan «i 4. 489,446), 
val Omen wee weee is 429.43) GOL Tf, 
lO es 1.451, 7 asl: 
Bi, OBI 2h eihilgs ieee 
Vleet mera 110, Aide 
it Matas eae FA. 405s: 
Dyielo lie ou bey el 00: 
ie Wes. ees 479, 486, 487, : 
li. 285;. 
Coan) woke nc ee Clgiees 
1 THESSALONIANS. 
iii, St. * caeg ame ai, 197-8, 205, 


248 fag. 


1 THESSALONIANS—continued. 


Te ete tee OO wl On, 
abl SIN ube mentee aly CAI Ko Pb ates 
LVcee eae ere lle Sone 
VENI Deva ae SE OPAL DI. 
LVS LO ee igh ahs pirinnge 22 vee OO Oem omnis 
3824. 
Vil=00 7) ce Pa eepooeder: 
2 THESSALONIANS. 
Weta a ee tee penal sO ec 
TO LOn ao eee ese ZOO eae 
Tse 2 fino spaces Mania oe 


24215, 242 f, 
ii. 83-12, Relation 
to Nero Legend i. 246f., 250f.,. 


eee i. 226, 2355. 
ii, 6f. . ~°. |. i, 9907, O38he 
HAT, sot ae ON 28S 


lie 14 fae Ro eee done 
ii 17) 8 ea ede 
245. 


1 Timorry. 
1.3 Seige bly Oe Stee 
1.35 Hug OW 6 dies Or, 
1.4 ‘ ue elie Oee 
1. 8-1] Feit ieioaicy wilbed KOYay 
1 20 uot ee Bee PRLS eno mL OSE 
TAL ow cure eI OS OOM 


Lak Ao eee tat ee 
MESS ea eNO tikes | 6F 


sl Ne nt ig. -orrays big gM 
TURE TAB]! ce eae Wisse Oily 
abhi Raby) li. 95. 


li, 2, 12, Patristic 
and modern i in- 
terpretations of ii. 125 f.49. 


li ong teak alle ts 

Vip, UA toe Sone 

ALG. yee emma ised Las 

gl fe etn a) eh OO 

iv. 1 ff. hig AL Fs 

iv. 13 li. 385, 

hv, ee li. 98 

v. 3-16. li. 94. 

VilSie pee & = Leloves2 

Visor eT COs eo onset 

Vale Gorges She TOI NOs. 

Wl; LORS lars waa ll. Lay ps 

Vie eet el At O ate 
2 TIMOTHY. 


Tbs Ee li. 224. 
LO Gace ace wee ell ee 


532 
2 TrmotHy—continued. 
1, LOM: Hae Seek Oye 
ii. 17 iy Dlg 108 LF 117, 
129,,. 
i. lb eeaesate 
lili. 6-19 WW. 114 
iv.2 . 4 1194, 1141. 
epee lieelilios 
AVON Tbe iby aie 
iv. 10 i, 186, 416,93 ii. 
11f,, 25f.,, 48. 
iv. 11 ii, 430, 431. 
iv. ll- 13 Meee 
iv. 12 ff. srl Oulte 
iv. 14f. MAG. O14 49, 
iv. 16f. ii. 6-14, 18 f., 23 f.g. 
Tver 17; ii. 11f. 
iv. 20 ii, 14£., 265. 
iv. 21 ii 205,°42,. 
iv. 22 ii. 42, 
Tivus. 
Teva 1. 46h, 124 f.-, 
i. 5-9 ii. 67,. 
TAGE Pel aelfaaaaie wll. Obt 
i. 6, Patristic and 
modern inter- 
pretations of li. 125 f.4. 
Os ar kOOL 
1, 10-16 li. 44 ff. 
a eae i. 52; ii. 44, 52). 
1. 14-16 li. 105 f. 
ING hier vi os, 
lil. 12 f i, 48f., 53 f.g-4. 
rei el lil. 454, 
ie 15 li. 45. 
PHILEMON. 
1f. i. 452, 455. 
ae, i. 455). 
5-7 i. 454, 455,. 
Ae 1. 4555. 
ee 1. 457,. 
11 i. 456; 
18f, i, 4564. 
20 i. 456,. 
99, 1. 442, 444, 550. 
93 f:\ i. 440f., 450f.,. 
24 i, 442, 4514; ii 
601 ; iii. 1f. 
y HipreEews. 
pas: ii, 324, 338,. 
43 t: ii. 315. 


INDEX 


Heprews—continued. 


Wes Sc ii, 347, 352, 364,,. 

WSTSLE, ii. 320 ff, 3375. 

sub G) i. 320 f, 323 f., 
351. 

ili. 15-iv. 11 i, o22 f. 

Ve wl i. 36244, 3804. 

v.12. ii. 319, 339,9, 350. 

vil. ii, > SOB 4. 2 aeee 
339}. 

vi. 4-8 i. 802, 303. 

vi. 10 ii. 317, 3363. 

vu. 27 ii. 361 ff.,4. 

ix. 4. ii. 363 £44. 

ier f(aiie ii. 340 f.4. 

ix. 14 U1. 326 f., 339.39 

xeldee li. 362. 

x, 25 3 li. 339 f.,,, 348 £. 

eroOls i. 365,5. 

x. 32 ff. i. 347. 

x. 32-34 li. 317 ff., 336 f.,. 

x. 34. ii. 304, 31214. 

xi. 14-16 ii. 140. 

xii. 4. li. 318. 

xii. 13 ii. 36149. 

xii, 22 ii, 339, . 

xiii. 4 li. 333. 

Keng li. 316, 319, 320, 
347. 

xiii. 7-25 li. 297. 

xi. 8 li. 336. 

xili 9 0s 331, 34040. 

xiii. 10-16 li. 824 f., 331, 3885. 

xiii. 13 £. li. 859 fig. 

Sait, L7ab; li. 316, 335 f.5. 

xii. 18-24 il. 304. 

xii, 22 li. 313. 

xii. 23, Interpre- 

tation of Baur ii. 3604. 
xiii. 24 . ii. 345, 350, 3585. 
JAMES. 

se Lol 78itea (ee 
79,, 93, 100.0 
150;. 

1, Off. i. 86, 98;. 

13: LD 1, 122. 

a Bai i. 118,. 

i,18. i. 149,. 

i, 20f. 1. 960. 

i. 26 f. i O75. 

Tis, batt 1, Ov ts 

aay, ic Tile 

Tie Bas i. 83, 94). 

ii. 5 i. 99,,-116,. 

Hees aes 1. 995. 


j 


a 


2 UN SOP Stel ia all pe ah 


. 14-26 


INDEX 


JAMES—continued. 


1,122, 124 ff, 1301, 
149 f.,. 

i. 974. 

i, 120s. 

i. 91. 

1: 95 toe 

i. 87. 

i. 1205. 

ii, 4865. 

Rie 

ane 59549. 

i, 122. 


1 PETER. 


i. 1853; ii. 184, 
146, 151 ff.,.;, 
154 f.,. 

ii. 147 f., 156,49. 

ii. 186,. 

Tah 

ii. 147, 1569. 

ii. 146. 

ii. 144, 187,. 

ii. 186,. 

ii. 139 ff. 

ii. 1884. 

ii. 186 f.4. 

ii. 188,. 

ii. 142 f. 


189 - 
19454 1908s: 
146 f. 


ae alle 

ii. 146 f. 

ii. 158 f., 179 ff. 

ll. 145, 149 f., 
V5 iia, Liat. 

ii. 148. 

ii. 148, 157,,, 158 ff., 
162,-173,, 427, 
431, 4455, 4500, 
601. 


ii. 1-1. 4 . 
pba i , interpreta- 
“tion of ere : 


563 
1 Perrr—continued. 
v. 13, Clement of 
Alex. on. ll. 448). 
1 oye las. Meslke os 
2 PETER. 
ict iit 194. so06. 
218 fia, 9. 
eco ii. 207, 220 fo. 
tees Shy eee, 
a aee ii. 222 f., 232,. 
i. 12 ff ii, 199f, 211 ff, 
O2ile 
iias ii. 169, 212 ff.5. 
pi5k ii. 200, 215,, 272 f., 
286,. 
i. 16-18. ii. 200 ff, 204 ff, 


215 ff.g, 223, 274. 
ii. 250. 


ii. 233 fag. 

ii. 231. 

ii. 224, 232 f.». 

ii. 229 f. 

ii. 225, 288 f.7. 

ii, 2895. 

ii, 225. 

ii. 229. 

ii. 211,, 229, 235 f.g, 
16: : 

ii. 225, 235 fg. 

ii. 225, 29144. 


tL oly 

ii. 225, 229, 

ii, 232). 

ii. 195 f., 199, 202, 
210f.4,211,, 271. 

ii. 204f, 218, 

ii, 251 f. 


ii, 196, 226, 230, 
236.4 


ii. 231, 2365. 


ii, 236 ff.5. 

ii. 209. 

ii, | 198 omy 
274 ff., 29045. 


iii. 16 ii. 277, 29010, 21, 10 
iui. 16- 17 Th PATE Tt 
1 JOHN. 

il iii, 814, GaeOn 

373o. 
ils TS ii. 344. 
hk ie! lil. 356-361, 370o, 3. 
114. ii, 286, ; iil. 373). 


534 
1 Joun—continued. 
LoL ake lil. 3735. 
ii. 14. iii. 360, 370 f.4. 
ii. 18 ff ili. 363, 371s. 
Aer. iii. 332). 
iii. 12-15 li. 257,. 
iv.3. iii. 365, 371 f.g. 
OMe lil. 373. 
Gis iii. 377. 
oy: ili. 3263. 
14-16 iii. 3705. 
5fR 2) iii. 365 f., 3727. 
6 ff. ii. 380, 
Ue iil. 372,. 
21. iii. 356, 363. 
2 JOHN. 
Les ii. 148, 157.) 3 iii 
379 £., 383,. 
5s iii. 379 £., 383s. 
7 ff. iii. 364 f., 372g. 
ome ili. 3845. 
Le lil. 3735. 
12. ili. 3709, 378. 
is ii, 148, 157)). 
3 JOHN. 
9 ff. ‘ li, 375 ff, 378, 
ae0t 
12. : il. 377. 
JUDE. 
‘es ii. 238 f., 256,, 268. 
an ii, 241f. 256 fi 
269, 2865, 6 
3, Spitta’s inter- 
pretation of ll. 286,. 
Lee es 4241, 247, 248 Ff, 
25°7 4,259f.9,26043, 
265 f., 285 f.,. 
Biers ime Pik ii. 252 fh, B60 ag: 
Bytext of 28 ils, 1:.260 T45. 
Be Wee... i, 248, 292,,,. 
8-16, varying in- 
terpretations of ii. 292),. 
9, relation to the 
“ Assumption 
of Moses” . li. 288,. 
12. ii, 2448, 246f, 
257 f.5, 29114. 
12. ii. 211,, 2353, 243, 
245 f., 2574, 2585. 
14f,, text of . ii. 286 f.,. 
14f., relation to 
Book of Enoch ii. 286 fy. 


INDEX 


pte bee te pee ete ete bee pete ete pe pt 
Supe mks bie ore cans 


JuDE—continwed. 


16 f. ii. 246. 
idioms li. 239, 250 f., 265 f., 
285 fg. 
18. ii. 251, 2604. 
tose ii. 244, 258,, 279. 
21-23 ii. 248, 258 f.g. 
D3 8 page ie SLT 246, 
24f., relation to 
Rom. xvi. 25-27 ii. 291,35. 
REVELATION. 
Leakey ii, 37853; i. 384, 
391, 402,, 403f.,. 
. 8-ili. 22 . ili, 434). 

3 ii. 385g. 

Ae ill. 435,. 

Ds is iii. 391 £., 403 fs. 

af. iii. 354,,, 389, 444. 

9. iii. 408 f., 420,. 

10 f. ili. 402,. 

i. iii. 391, 404,. 

aT, iii. 430, 434. 

19 . iii, 892, 404,, 422. 
Ke ee iii. 413 f., 422 fy. 
ie DS: iii. 423,. 

li. 2-6 li. 292, 5. 

ii. 2, 6 ili, 419, 42749. 

il. 8 fff. ill. 416 f., 4265. 

li. 12-17 ili. 410, 4205. 

i. 13 f. ili, 4219. 

ii. 14. ii, 2353, 291 fy; 

iii, 163,9, 417£. 

ii. 20 ii. 292,, ; 1. 163, , 
416, 418, 423 ff... 

123). lit, 424,. 

ii, 24. iii “W6Se¢;. 4ETE 
426 f.4;. 

To iii. 416, 425 f.s. 

ui. 14 i. 316, 329f.,. 

Ve dit, iii. 392 f., 402,, 404,. 

ee iii. 393, 405 f.,. 

vi. 1-17 ii. 395 f, 

vi. 9 ff ili. 409. 

vil. 1-17 ii. 396 f. 

viii. 1 E ili. 395 ff. 

viii. 2-ix. 21 . ili, 897 £. 

x4. iii, 398, 4055. 

Say Lente lil. 202,,4. 

pclae bt oA ili, 398 f. 

xi. 1-18 il. 438 f. 

Paha ER a. te ili. 398, 4065. 

xi. 19-xiv. 20. iil. 399 f. 

KU se . lil. 439 if, 446. 

xii. 18 . iii, 182, 436, 444, 


4474. 


INDEX 


REVELATION—continued. 
eee Oe. 

AVeele sha cio 111. 4025, 
XV l-cvio ly ee I 400! 
Xvil. l-xvili. 24 . iii. 400. 
KVIGGH eee eee sd. 410; 
AVileOne «ssi. 450, 
446 fio. 
165, ; i. 403,, 
410, 


441 ff, 
Seu vuls O10) yanmar e 


MOULIN AY ews a) Le a0, 


535 


REVELATION—continued. 


XTX LO sees eee yee 

xix. 11-16. . . ii, 315f., 329,. 
mabe WMISooig ates s ohbi, “Aa10) 

ERA ses ciel ba OO ate 

MS Di sy ore te ee OO tiers 
xxi. 8-xxll.5. . i. 400f, 

KX LO) seis seecu ele OG tangs 


6 Srl CUI WE Aus shee 8), 


B—OLD TESTAMENT PASSAGES. 


GENESIS. 
IVGeeeME Ras Es 5 11 20 7x 
Vea eee tT, Gens 

LEVITICUS. 
xix, 12536. il. 5954. 

PSALMS. 


xev. 70-11. it, S204, 3300 


xxi, 12-16 ee 4055 
XX. Ql ees Tse wel 40a. 
7 oe. 
[ 
ISAIAH. 
vii. 14 We DS fs 
VillaS=ix. le 11541, 
Hossa. 
i. 2 li. 481). 
BARNABAS. 
iv. 14 ii. 526 f.,. 


C.—GREEK WORDS. 


(The words found in this Index unaccented follow the form of the words adopted 
by Dr. Zahn in the text of his book, and represent simple transliterations 


from the Hebrew and Aramaic.) 


aBa, i. 165, 48 f. 

dyarray, ili, 227;9, 249,, 289s. 
ayarn, li. 211,, 229, 235g ; 111. 289s. 
dyarnros, iil. 326, 356. 


dyyapeveww, 1. 66)4. 


dyyedos, iil. 1336, 402, 413-417, 422 f.,. 
ay.o, ol, 1. 455, 506 f. ; ii. 2573, 3363. 
ayipas, 1. 2649. 


 abdikety, 1. 3496. 
—? ASpias, Ui. 138q9. 
aQupa, ili. 296 fi47. 


aber pos, Ui. 228. 
aipeots, li. 232 f.5. 


| aipercxoi, 11. 100. 


aidves, 1. 498, 516 fig. 
Axeddapa, 1. 28; 5. 

adn btvos, ii. 218, 
adAndovia, i, 12. 


aos, 11. 277, 29045. 
dAXorpioerriokoros, 11. 1909. 
apabns, ii. 228 f. 

apadia, li. 229. 

apnv, i. 18, 18, ; ili. 136,0, 316, 329 f.,. 
avaBaivety, ill. 80z¢. 

avayvects, ll. 3853. 
avaypadeuy, iii. 3). 
avOparuvos, li. 1884. 

dvOpwror, i. 613 f.5. 

Avvas, 1. 173. 

dvopia, 1. 229, 2409, 251.. 

avos (adj. ending), ii. 193. 
dvridtkos, 1. 64). 

avrideos, 1. 226, 228, 2525. 
aytiyptoros,, 1. 227 ff., 2409. 
dvoey, ii. 170, 214, ; ili. 52 f, 
draé, li. 2563, 260j9. 


536 


amex Over Oat, 1. 474, 5219. 
am 0, ils 60, ; li. 358,, 384, 3 lil. 2977, 435. 
with gen., ii. 578. 

am apyis, iii. 46 f., 84,. 

amod.opi¢ery, li. 258,. 

’"Amod@s, 1. 27049. 

admodoyia, 1. 540. 

amoarodos, admrooroAn, i. 
370f.,, 505f., 507 ; ii. 206f., 
386 f. ; ; li. 78f., 226 f.5. 

dpern, il. 289). 

apxn, apxat, il. 457 ff. ; 

acap8a, 1. 26;0. 

aoodpwor, 1, 41, 664 . 

dornptKTos, ii, 228 £. 

Gromos, ili. 161. 

avAn, il. 504,. 

avrnxoos, li. 439. 

avromrns, li. 439; iii. 46 f., 82,, 84,, 
130,. 

adéwvrat, li. 612. 

apapiopévos, 1. 68)53 li. 2585. 


2103, 354, 
22010, 


iii. 1625. 


BapafBas, 1. 30 fir, 

BapBapos, i 260, eoMp > lil. 13949. 
BapOohopaios, i. 31,6. 

Baptova, 1. 17. 

Bapos, 1. 516;. 

BapvaBas, 1. 31y¢. 

BapoaBas, 1. 31y¢. 

Bacavigerday, i iil. 1605. 

Bacirela Tr. ovpavay, 7, li. 539f, 5683, 10: 
Baoureis, li. 180 f.49. 

Baros (Badovs), iii. 186 >. 
Beed(<Bour, 1. 193. 

Bedovn, lil. 1625. 

BnOeoda, 1. 285; ill. 353,35. 
BnOpayn, i. 29)5. 

BiBXiov, lii. 393 f., 405 f.7, 5. 
Boavnpyes, 1. 16. 

Bogop, li. 292. 


TaBBada, 1. 28; 

TaXaria, Paria, j 1.174 ff, 188f.; ii. 25f... 

Takarir) x@pa, Hy 1. 187 ff.4. 

yeevva, 1. 1953 il. 488, 

Tebonpaves, 1. 2945. 

yetwpas, 1. 30, 67133 Ul. 1534. 

yeveadoyia, Hi. 103 ff, 128f.5,, 5624.5, 

yéveots, yévenats, ie "531 f. » 562;. 

Tevynodp, UE lll. 333,4. 

yvooros, 11. 231)7. 

Todyoa, i i, 29). 

ypappara, ypapn, li. 277, 290y. 

ypapew dia twos, li. 157). 

ypapo, eypawya, 1. 17214, 345f.55 il. 
39,3 i. 238f,, 370 f.4. 


"EXAN?Y, 


INDEX 


Aadparia, 1. 1864. 

déevv, 11. 56949, 578. 

Seexvuvat, lii. 402). 

Aexdrrons, 7), 1. 35. 

Seordrns, li. 234 fio. 

dnvapwov, 1. 41, 661; ; li. 5034. 

dud, with acc., 1. 437, ; ii. 420). 
with gen., 11. 372;. 

Sta péoov, lil. 9049. 

dudBonros, 6, 1. 195, 520 ; 

dcaOnen, i. 41, 6543. 

dtaxoveiv, i. 6135. 

dudxovos, 1. 91f., 123 f.4. 

duddexros, 1. 27,5, 54f. 

Stacmopd, i. 807, 82g ; Tiel 40 fel bo dee 

dackania, i. 133. 

SiddoKanos, 1. 1165. 

didayn, i. 116); li. 133. 

Stkaocvvn, ii. 593,49. 

Soxipios, TO Soxipuoy, 1. 1333 3 1. 1865. 

Ovvapis, li. 2155. 

ducevrépov, ili. 161;. 


iii. 1365. 


‘EBpatos, i. 48 fi, 59., 60 tas Qijas li. 
296 f., 3074, 359. 

éBpaitev, éBpaicri, éBpais Suddexros, 1 
11 ff., 26 f.59 5 1. 525,. 

éykaraNneirey, i. 3393). 

€ehoOpnoxeia, 1 1. 478,. 

€Ovos, 1 i. 68;5, 354 f,, 370 fo, 

ei (oath), li. 5025. 

ex, gen. partitive, il. 284,, 353,4, 435,. 

“ exeivos,” ili, 219 f., 228 f.43 16. 

exkAngia, 1. 297, ; 1. 550; i. 80g; in 
Paul’s Epistles, i. 504 f. 

ékAexTn, li. 157). 

éexAexros, exdéyerOa, Ui. 1534, 5, 1571, 5 
lil, 2275, 284,. 

EAAnvis, EAANViKOs, 1, 247, 36, 
585, 873 £.4. 

€AAnvixy SuddexTos, 4, i. 54-57, 

‘EdAnviorns, i. 60 fg, 71 fo). 

evéornkey, i. 235p. 

efodos, | i. 215,, es 

éoprn, 7, Wi. 285 f.4, 47 

€mnpety, i 1. 61,. 

émtovaros, li. 594, 

émiokoros, ll. 32, SOF. 123f.,, 124; 
ii. 416f., 422 fg. 

emiotarns, lil. 38;5, 69, 136». 

emuorpépety, li. 1546. 

emiouvay@yn, 1. 236,, 255; il. 
347, 350. 

emupavera, i, 255 ; 1. 133, 215¢. 

emixerpety, il. 29, 44, 82'f. 5, 6 

épya, interchanging with’ réxva, il. 


459. 


34033, 


INDEX 


epya vexpa, li. 326, 339, 9. 
Eppnvevery, ii. 511 ff. 

Eppnveutns, li. 394, 442 f., 45110, 454 f.45. 
épxeo Oat, 11. 505,, 589, ; iii. 372, 
érepodiWacxaneiy (meaning), li. 126 f.4. 
érepodiOdo xakor— 

in Pastoral Epistles, ii. 126). 

Origin, ii. 117. 

Patristic application of references in 

Pauline Epistles, ii. 128,,. 

Relation to Judaisers, ii. 116. 

Relation to Ebionism, ii. 116. 

Relation to Petrine Party, ii. 116. 

Relation to Jewish teachers in Col- 

osse, li. 116. 
Relation to Marcion’s teaching, 11. 
118. 
Relation to Jewish teachers in Igna- 
tius, ii. 116. 
érepodidarKahodyres, ii. 96f., 101 ff. 
€repos, 11. 277, 290jo. 
eboyrodtecBars 1. 165, 171,, 37233 i. 
4815. 
evayy&ctov, i. 507; ii. 378, 385, 
386 ff., 457, 461, 481,53; li. 166, 
3738p. 

N.T. usage of term, ii. 4813. 
evayyéduov Kara Tia, li, 386 ff., 396 f.4.5. 
evayyéduov T. Xpiorod, li. 370f., 377 £2, 

456 ff. 
evayyeAcorns, 1. 507 f. ; li. 30 5 111. 200,o. 
evOus, li. 482, 5 iii. 135y9. 
evAaBys, i. 61g. 
eppada, i. 153. 


Gproris, ii. 578 ; iil. 77, 929g. 
Zerikos, li. 426,. 


iyyovpevos, ii. 70, 316, 347, 350. 
nret= edo, 1. 15s. 


Odhacca=Ripvn, iil. 136,3, 249,, 33314. 

Oédew ey timt, 1. 4777. 

Onpiov, iii. 161,. 

Opynokeia, Opnokds, i. 97g, 4, 131,, 4681, 
ATT. 


7s 
6upuarnptoy, i. 363. 
Gupeds, 1. 519. 


ravds, adj. ending, il. 193 f. 

tStos, lil. 2255. 

idta@rns, 1. 25o. 

‘Jepovoadyp (‘Iepooddupa), i. 295; i. 

"Ingovs, 1. 45143 il. 260 L495 555, 569, 
576 f., 592, 3 iil. 91g), 3714, "4345. 

Jovdaia, i. "186,. 


VOL, Ill, 


Sig? 


*Tovdatos, 1. 60f.g; 1. 561. 
in Fourth Gospel, iii. 340 f., 354,,. 
usage and meaning, ii. 306f.,. 
Ioxapiorns (loxapio8), iii. 351,. 
*Iaav(v)ys, i. 175 3 ili. 227), 2509, 433). 
Iwan, loons, loonx, 1. 2815, 2946. 


Kadapiopos, li. 232). 

cabiCev, i1. 352 f.zo. 

ka@voropely, lil. 7p. 

Kal, ii. 502., 576, 591 fF °% 616, 5 lil, 
35334. 

kaxorrotés, i. 181 f., 189 f.g. 

Kanos, li. 132. 

Kavavaios, 1, 32,73 ii. 578. 

Kavavirns, i. 578. 

xaraBpaBevey, 1. 4723, 5185. 

karaheimew, i. 340), 

Karéxov, KaTéx@V, 1. '229 f. , 2363, 238 fu, 
250 f.7. 

KaTH yop, as 64). 

KaTNXEW, iil. 42 f. » 82,4. 

KQTOLKELV, Rerocte i. 61,3 i. 153. 

kevtupior, li. 5034; ii. 136;5. 

KHVOOS, 1. 66113 > li. 5034. 

Knpvypa Iérpou, i. 475¢. 

Kndas, 1. 163 ; 11. 155,. 

KAjots, 1. 254). 

kodpavtns, i. 41, 66;,3 ii. 5034; iii. 

13° 

Kon, 7), 1. 54, 

KodoBodaxTvAros, li. 4454. 

copBav, kopBavas, 1. 163; il. 577. 

KpaBBaros, i. 503,. 


Kparearos, lll. 6;, 42, 813. 


kupia, iil. 379, 382 fg. 
Kuptaky NEPA, Ty U1. 42649. 
KUpte, 1. 41, 654}. 
KUpLOS, 6, 1. 150. 
in 1 and 2 Thess., i. 254), 
in John, iii. 914, "249, 
in Jude, ii. 253, 260 f.15. 
in Mark, il. 476, 486s. 
in Rey., ill. 434,. 


Adapos, 1. 3044. 

Aart, 1s 2713 

Aapmpdraros, ili. 65. 

Aads, 6=Israel, ii. 143, 253 f,, 645, 
Aarpela, Rarpeverv, il. 326, 33910. 
Reyeawy, 1. 41, 663). 

heytoy, ii. 5034. 

Nemroy, 1. 66;1- 

AiBeprivot, i. 60,. 

Adbyuay, i. 5254, 579. 

Adyea Ta, ii. 509 ff. 

Royiouas, i. 5167, 


34 


538 


AoyeKds, 1. 1874. 

Aoyos, 1. 2345; iii, 312-321, 327 ff.,5. 
431, 434,. 

Adyos Fee kuptov, li. 378 f.5. 

Roum ds, UL. 277, 2904. 

Aovoapevn, 11. 232). 

ve, il. 56940, 578. 


paOnral, 111. 2265. 

PaLovas, He 18, ; 5 ili. a 12° 

papavada, i. 13, 303 ff.y9 

Mapéa, 1. 30j¢. 

Mapvap, 1. 30j¢. 

paprupely, paprupia, paptus, li. 70, 155, ; 
Mi. 20597, 22814) 239 f., 4355. 

paptuptov Tod Xpiorov, il. 377f. 12 

MarOauos, li. 524, 3. 

Mar6uas, ii. 524 f.. 

Mecouas, 1. 203 5 lil. 3265. 

povoyerns, iil. 310 f., 3265. 

pivot, li. 108 ff, 128 f, “1g 

puoTnptoy, 1. 229, 2365, 418,73 ili. 422,, 
4474. 

uapes, e 17f. 


NaOavand, 1. 814g 3 ii. 524, 5 iii. 2254. 
val, 11. 330.. 

veK pos, 11. 326, 339). 

VoptK Os, 11 BA, 103. 

BES SGOK Nol, li. 1038, 130)5. 


&évos, 1. 139. 
Eéarns, Ul. 5034. 


olkovopia, oikovdpos (Oeov), i. 471); il. 


8° 
oikoupévn, 6, iii. 130 f.. 
dvedifer Oat, 11. 190p. 
dvopa, iii. 381,, 426. 
ody, in John, ili. 2853. 
ry Ros, ill. 35110. 
ova: 1. 3753. 


maides, i. 594). 

mana, il. 252, 2604. 

may SoKelov, mavdoKeds, 1.41, 65). 
mapayyeAta, ii. 40. 

mapadiddva, mapddoots, li. 38465 iil. 


Pibetie 5 
mapadkAnros, i. 41, 6441; ili. 3738p. 
mapaxodovbeiv, ii. 455 5 ill. 65, 85p. 
maparurex dsy, ili. 161;. 
mapapevery, 1. 5555. 
mapagkeun, ii. 488 3 ili. 295 f. 
mapayphpa, lil. 1615. 
mapemtdnpos, 1 ii. 139 ff, 152 f.4. 
MT APOLKOS, TrapoLK Lay 1. él, 82, 139ff j162H3. 


INDEX 


mapovoia, li. 2156. 

maoxa, i. 19g 3 il. 282 f., 296 ff.47. 

maayxetv, li. 1905. 

IlavAos, lil. 14055. 

mépav T. lopddvou, i. 572 f., 577, 5894. 

mepurarety, 1. 332, 340,53 lil. 32 f.44. 

Tepiropis, oi ex, usage of term, il. 3074. 

Ilérpos, li. 219 f. 

mXavn, li. 247, 258,. 

ANY, ill. 164yo. 

TAnpopopetv, ii. 45, 50, 83 f.g. 

mrnpopa, i. 497 f., 515 fig. 

mvedpa, 1, 207), 234,; i. 1103 iii. 
402), ». 

mvevpartikos, 1. 297, ; il. 258.4, 279. 

mouny, 1. 520; i. 124. 

moNreta, ToAiTevpa, 1. 520. 

monurdpyns, 1. 2114. 

mopOeiv, i. 14055. 

mpare@pioy, 1.541 f., 551 ff, 3 ii. 503 f.,. 

mpakis, mpakes, 11. 526, ; i. 3), 875. 

mpeaBurepos, 1. 23,5, 33, 91 f., 124 f.5.¢ ; 
ii. 146 f., 436 ff., 452,53; ili. 380. 

mpeoBirepos, by in 1 ‘John, i lili. 184, 185. 

mpeoBvrepot, oi, in Clement of ‘Alex., 
ii. 178, 197;. 

in Irenzeus, ii. 175, 178. 

mpeoBurns, 1. 457,. 

T POT eT ew, I, 438» ; 3 li. 544. 

mpoodoxay, iii. 161. 

mT pooevyn, 1. 528, 5384). 

mpdokhiors, 1. 298. 

m popytns, Hea 1. 1169, 207,, 5058. ; 
i. 385 ff., 402 f.5. 

mp@tos, -ov, mpdrepos, 1. 3724.4, 532, ; 
il. 22 45 ii. 61, 8816) 1394, 224 f... 

mT@yXOS, 1. 1484. 


paBB., paBBovvi, i. 205; ii. 155¢. 
paka, 1. 173. 
paxa, li. 577. 


odSBaroy, -ra, ve 195, 31;¢. 
=week, 1. 2123; iii. 13645. 
pia and mporn o., i. 475f. 
o. ee iii. 168. 
caivety, i. 222 
capPabeioy, i iil. "425. 
caravas, i. 185, 520. 
Zadvdos, ili. 140);. 
oeBopevos, 1. 61g, 213,. 
onpaivery, iil. 43, 402,. 
onpetov, lil. 233, 304 ff, 325 £.,. 
cikepa, 111, 136y0. 
Sikypa, Svyxepy 1. 30i¢; Ui. 351). 
ZiAas (StAovaves), i, 31 f.1¢, 207. 
Sir@ap, 1. 2915. 


Sipov, Supedy, 1. 29 f.y¢3 ii. 219s. 


owdor, u. 491. 

oKnvovr, lll. 223.5. 

oretpa “Tradexn, SeBaorn, i. 60g. 
omekovAdTap, l. 5034. 

omdas (oritos), i li. 258;. 
orotxeta, TA, 1. 473 f.5. 
orparoreddpxns, 1. 552. 
ovyyerns, 1. 417 fio 3 iii. 231. 
ovKapLvos, TUKOpLOpEea, ill. 162;. 
ovANapBaver Gai rit, 1. 5376. 
cupBiBacerv, 1. 472o. 

Supewy, 11, 2199. 

Zupeov Iérpos, 1. 271. 
cvuptmAnpodvaGat, iil. 141 fing. 
cTupmpeaBurepos, li. 146 f. 
cuvayoyn, i. 94f., 3 ii. 340)). 


cvvatypadraros, 1. 41893, 440, 4514. 


ovvédpioy, 1. 41, 64). 

Supos, i. 23,4. 

Supopowixioca, 1. 247. 
ovaceapos, i. 520. 
ovotpatiarns, 1. 440, 447). 
ovoTpépev, cvoTpopn, ill. 28,. 


rafv6a, is 2631 3 ili. 13744. 

radwOa koup, 1. 153 

Takis, li. 4009, 439, 606. 

ramewoppoovrn, i. 468 f., 477 f.7. 

Taxis, li. 212. 

rékva, li, 594). 

Téppa TS dvoeas, i li. 72. 

TBepras, lll. 324, 333,4. 
TOTE, li. 591 f.7. 

Tphya, ili. 1625. 

Tpomatoy, li. 82, 


INDEX 


539 


vyaiverv, Hyuns, 1. 7855 1. 12944. 
vids Tod Geod, 6, lili. 809 f. 


payeiv TO mdoxa, lil. 282 f., 296 ff.17. 
Papicaios, 1. 3217, 68)5 5 ll. 2585. 
Aone 1. Cas ae pee 

or porevery, 11 6° 
over meron ie Cle olde. 
ppayedAdody, Ui. 5034. 

ovely TO avd, 1. 537¢. 
tf 6 


| horiterOa, ii. 3375. 


xaavaia= priests, i. 26;5. 
xalpery, 1. 85, 1197; ili. 134g. 
Xavavaia, ii, 578. 

xdpis kai eipnyn, i. 119;. 
Xapiopa, 1. 2975, 375s. 


| yapiopara, 1. 279 ff. 


XepouBew, il. 36149. 

Xpnoros, 1. 483¢. 

Xpworiavds, xpnotiaves, i. 213, 433g; ii. 
185, 191 f.49, 618. 

Xptorés, 1. 20 f.3, 4334; il. 4345. 

xpos, iil. 161. 

xopelv, iil. 2505. 


pevdodiddoKaros, | ii, 232 fio. 
evdorpopnrns, li. 232, ; ili. 4039. 
Pevdoxpioros, 1. 228, 238,, 239. 
Woxat, li. 2899. 

Wuytkos, 1. 498 ; 3 li. 258,, 279. 


Os, i. 214,; as cai, li. 234, 
ocavva, 1. 9, 12, 213, 304. 


THE END. 


Printed by 
Morrison & Gree LimitED 
Edinburgh 


| 


DATE DUE 


Demco, Inc. 38-293 


‘in 


2295.1 Z19 v.93 


Ac. #54024 
Zahn, Theocder 


Intreaductian ta the 
Testament 


New 


ELLIOTT LIBRARY 
C ener College & Seminary 


ee Oe ie eS 
Ac. FS4OR 1 


Zahn, Theedar 


intreaduction toa the New 
Testament 


to 


| 


Q 


CINCINNATI BIBLE COLLEGE & SEM. LIBRARY 
5 main 


| 


DEMCO 


RD ve apes s y ¢ : ear su 


Hb ete : Piet BER 


3 3 : : oe ; 4 sae PP gk only: 
ae ay a = oe oat 


AIA 
rae 
FEM oh 


De aCmeae de eer ipo) 
SP PTE FPO Se 
Vie en vou 


Rng otis tr Ten 


bk os